Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 17 May.

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 14 May at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 10 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 17 May.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To he read a Second time on Thursday 17 May.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 17 May.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Sunday Trading

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the law relating to Sunday trading in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The relevant law is contained in the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, and is similar to the law applying in England and Wales.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that a law which prohibits the sale of the Bible but allows the sale of girlie magazines, which allows the sale of gin but not of condensed milk and which allows the sale of chocolate but prohibits the sale of sugar, is illogical, immoral and fortunately, rarely enforced? Should not the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 reflect the realities of life in the 1990s instead of the prejudices of the 1940s?

Mr. Needham: I accept that many elements of the Sunday trading laws are ridiculous. One can buy food for an ass but not for a cat in Northern Ireland on a Sunday. However, there is no significant political pressure for changing the trading laws on Sunday in Northern Ireland, least of all from Unionist Members of Parliament. Although we shall keep the matter under review, it would be unwise for us to do anything without seeing what happens in the rest of the country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) does, that the real problem involves traders who for profit motives rather than community interests want to trade on the Sabbath day? Was not that problem with us long before Nehemiah was governor of Jerusalem, and is not it likely to remain? The real issue is to apply the law and maintain the sanctity of that day.

Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the enforcement of the law is the responsibility of district councils in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that he will pass that message on to them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that those anomalies refer to England and Wales as well as to Northern Ireland? When poking fun at Northern Ireland, he should also poke fun at the parts of Great Britain that come under the same laws. Will he give the House an assurance that if the Sunday trading law is considered in a Bill for the rest of Great Britain, the people of Northern Ireland will have the same opportunity of having a proper Bill and not something pushed through the House by an Order in Council which would be unacceptable in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a transfered matter, so any changes will be dealt with under the transferred procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I never poke fun, least of all at him.

Mr. Ray Powell: I have very rarely been called during Northern Ireland Question Time, but the matter concerns


the Shops Act 1950. The Government are continually preaching that we should abide by the law and obey it. Is it not time that the Government themselves ensured that the Shops Act 1950 was properly upheld and enforced as an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that in Northern Ireland, enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the district council.

Local Authority Powers

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further talks he has had with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the transfer of certain powers to local authorities.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I have been having discussions with the leaders of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland about the possibilities of transferring greater power to locally elected representatives. I have made it clear that the Government would give serious consideration to any workable proposals for more local involvement in the government of Northern Ireland if they seemed likely to command widespread acceptance.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too much power is exercised in Northern Ireland by Northern Ireland Ministers and that, perforce, not enough is exercised by local people in the Province? Because the transfer of powers is well understood and accepted, and because the constitutional arrangements are there to accept, does my right hon. Friend agree that now may be the time for Northern Ireland politicians to sink their differences—which we all accept have been very real—in the interests of transferring power, which would be in everyone's interest?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right in saying that Northern Ireland Ministers hold considerable power in Northern Ireland. It is within the knowledge of the House that we have been seeking to persuade locally elected politicians in Northern Ireland to accept that we might transfer some of that responsibility elsewhere. It is, inevitably, a two-way process and requires involvement in talks and consultations.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Secretary of State intends to introduce compulsory competitive tendering in local councils in Northern Ireland. What plans does he have to prevent paramilitary involvement in those services in future?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that particular danger, which the Government have very much in mind.

Mr. Kilfedder: The truth is that the onus is on the Government to act. They must get off their knees and not let Dublin stymie political progress in Northern Ireland any longer by setting down conditions for such progress. Without further delay, the Government must now restore the Northern Ireland Assembly which they brought scandalously to an abrupt end in a way that was a disgrace to them. They also entered the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was a betrayal of the Ulster majority. Surely the

Government should now recognise that betrayal and return powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I recognise the hon. Gentleman as a distinguished Speaker of the Assembly to which he refers. Conversations relating to the transfer of power to locally-elected representatives are covered in article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which acknowledges the possibility of such developments occurring, but the involvement of the Irish Government in such conversations, as stated in article 4, would relate to the attitudes and modalities to be expressed. The decision about the talks themselves rests wholly with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the Government.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that although in certain enlightened councils in Northern Ireland, especially those on which minority parties have a substantial say, progress has been made, in the mainstream of local government sectarian practices and attitudes are still very much to the fore? That is especially true of the Belfast corporation, which should be the flagship of local government in Northern Ireland. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the committee structures have been arranged there to prevent proper participation by the minority parties and that they have been deprived of offices and proportional representation? Even this week, financial resources have been denied to community services in minority areas. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the return of functions to local government in Northern Ireland is still inappropriate and is best left to an overall agreement between the parties in due course?

Mr. Brooke: It will not have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that contacts between Ministers and Belfast city council have been limited in recent years. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for me to pass comment on those with whom I have not been directly in contact. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that if we were to advance on the transfer of power, we should need to see widespread acceptance of the principles involved.

Breathalysers

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce the breathalyser into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We propose to consult on the introduction of the hand-held breathalyser for use by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The major drop in drink-driving is coming from the allied efforts of the drinks trade to encourage all hosts to provide an attractive range of alcohol-free drinks and non and low-alcohol lager and beer for drivers; to support passengers in choosing in advance a driver who does not take alcohol, and to prompt potential drivers to decide whether to drive or to drink alcohol.
These approaches, with the necessary and welcome enforcement work by police, will help to reduce the number of times a police officer has to knock on a stranger's door to announce that a mother or father, or a son or daughter will never return because of a drink-driver crash.

Mr. Colvin: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's reply. What consultations did he have before reaching his decision? I accept that there has been a downward trend in drink-driving offences since the introduction of low-alcohol drinks and the campaigns run by the on-licence trade, but what is the trend in drink-related accidents? If that is also downward, is it really necessary to introduce the breathalyser in the Province?

Mr. Bottomley: I pay tribute to those in the drinks trade —the on-trade, vintners, off-licences and brewers—for coming together to help to support the efforts to cut casualties. In the United Kingdom as a whole, and in Northern Ireland, the trend in drink-related deaths is clearly a downwards trend, and pedestrians are benefiting just as much as drivers and their passengers. The reason for introducing the hand-held breathalyser is that it provides a screening device and only those who fail the screening test need to be taken to the roadside evidential machine. That means that the RUC will be able to process more people more quickly and so get off the road faster, which in Northern Ireland is sometimes important.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware of the number of breathalysed drivers driving written-off vehicles imported from the mainland, repaired by cowboy garages and unleashed on the Northern Ireland community?

Mr. Bottomley: That is something which we shall want to keep under control, but with the vehicle-testing system in place, vehicle defects contribute to less than 10 per cent. of crashes, whereas road conditions contribute to about one third and driver error to 95 per cent. of crashes. I should welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in dealing with the driver error problem, which is by far the largest.

Natural Gas

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the Commission of the European Community for financial assistance for the provision of a natural gas supply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Needham: The town gas industry in Northern Ireland is virtually closed down and there seems little prospect of re-establishing a viable gas industry. However, the possibility of burning gas in power stations is being examined in the context of overall energy provision for Northern Ireland and officials of the Department of Economic Development are in touch with the European Commission.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that buried in the ground in Northern Ireland are 1,600 miles of perfectly good sound pipeline? Is he further aware that it would be comparatively easy to connect the gas supply from Great Britain—in the first instance to industry in Northern Ireland and thereafter to domestic consumers? Can the Minister say how, in the long-term, the Government can defend the exclusion of Northern Ireland from continental sources of energy?

Mr. Needham: We will, of course, accept energy at a competitive price wherever it comes from. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, at its peak, gas only accounted for some 4 per cent. of energy use. To restore the infrastructure to which the right hon. Gentleman

refers, which is not in perfect condition, would cost some £300 million, whereas to build Kilroot II would cost £300 million and give us 18 per cent. of our energy requirement. I am afraid that it makes no sense whatever to bring back the natural gas industry in Northern Ireland—either to the domestic or to the industrial consumer—but it is certainly worth considering whether gas can be used for electricity generation.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, as a former director of a Northern Ireland company, that Northern Ireland industry would very much like a natural gas supply to make it more competitive with the rest of the world and to enable it to stand more on its own two feet —as will become apparent when the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is answered?

Mr. Needham: What Northern Ireland industry needs is competitive energy. However beautiful natural gas may be, if it is very much more expensive than other forms of energy, it makes no sense to bring it back, and I am afraid that that is the position.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that we all wish the Province to have access to the cheapest form of energy for both domestic and industrial consumers? In the Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), he referred to the comparative costs of natural gas and electricity. To put an end to the continuing debate, will he give an assurance that he will publish the basis of the answers that he has already given?' Clearly, the evidence exists. To ensure an open debate, it would be in the best interests of Northern Ireland to publish that evidence and information.

Mr. Needham: Of course, we shall publish the information about the alternatives for electricity genera-tion and energy usage in Northern Ireland. We shall be happy to do that.

Economic Assistance

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much economic assistance Northern Ireland has received (a) from Her Majesty's Government and (b) from the European Community since 1979.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): Since 1978–79, the average amount by which Northern Ireland public expenditure has been financed by revenue raised in Great Britain has been approximately £1,400 million a year. Over the same period, Northern Ireland has received an annual average of some £66 million from the European Community's structural fund as well as further amounts which cannot be separately identified under, for example, the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for those impressive figures on economic assistance from the British taxpayer and the European Community. To what purpose is that money put? Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the quality of industrial investment as a result of that assistance is high? Will he take it from me that we are grateful for the support that his Department continues to give to Northern Ireland, in spite of security and political problems?

Mr. Cope: The figures that I gave are for the total public expenditure in Northern Ireland financed by Great Britain


and the Community respectively. Clearly, the money is used for a wide range of purposes, including economic development, to which my hon. Friend referred and, to some degree, security and other such matters. Of course, we do our best to make sure that all economic investment is of the best quality. The House will be aware of the Government's recent proposals to improve the quality.

Mr. Grocott: Can the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland Ministers believe that it is extremely important that there should be Government intervention and support, and a regional policy? How does he cope in Cabinet battles with the ideological gulf between his view and that of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Cope: Of course, we think it important that there should be support of one kind or another. As I said, the money to which I referred is used across the board, not only for economic development. If the hon. Gentleman studies the new proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who looks after economic development, he will see that we are doing our best to target the money on precise job creation projects.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Irish Republic receives from the European Community an average of £3 million per day and why there is such a differential between that and what is paid to Northern Ireland'? Will he also explain, on the question of additionality, how much money that comes from Europe for Northern Ireland goes directly to Northern Ireland? I ask that in view of the answers that have been given to me by Ministers on those questions.

Mr. Cope: The European Commission and European Community divide the money according to objective economic criteria. Commissioner Millan and his colleagues have made it clear that that is the basis on which the money is divided for the structural funds. The gross domestic product per head in Northern Ireland is more than 75 per cent. of the average in the European Community. It is higher than that in the Republic of Ireland and higher than that for any other objective single region. That is why we do not have the same amount per head as, for example, the Republic or other countries. We are entirely within the rules of additionality laid down by the European Community.

Railways

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways to discuss service improvements.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I will continue to meet the chairman as the occasion requires. Sir Myles Humphries is retiring in June after 24 years as a chairman dedicated to improving service for customers.

Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that Sir Myles is dedicated to improving services—it is more than can be said for InterCity. Will the Minister tell the House what action the Northern Ireland Office is taking about the axing of the Stranraer to Euston sleeper, which is as vital for Northern

Ireland as it is for the south-west of Scotland? If, as I suspect, his answer is that the Northern Ireland Office has done little or nothing on that, will he get together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport, and tell British Rail to put the service back into operation immediately?

Mr. Bottomley: If more people had used the service, it would have been more commercial. The Department in Northern Ireland made representations to British Rail. It takes seven and a half hours to get from London to Stranraer and costs £53 second class. I have no doubt that anyone travelling with the hon. Gentleman would find that as time and distance passed they would become sleepy so there would be no need to pay the extra £20 for the sleeper. Most people who go to Northern Ireland now fly.

Mr. Beggs: I welcome the views expressed and the support of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), but I very much regret that, as he said, the Northern Ireland Office has failed to weigh in and support the promotion of that service. We consider that it is important to maintain it. When the Minister meets the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways will he suggest getting together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport with a view to promoting the service because it could be of great economic advantage to south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps I could ask the hon. Gentleman to come and see me, and we might do a joint survey on how many times hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have used the service in the past year. That would give an indication of what weight we should put behind the representations that have been made.

Political Progress

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the main obstacle to political progress in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We believe that the main obstacle is the absence of talks with and between the Northern Ireland political leaders about political matters. However, there is now a significant common understanding on the issues such talks might address and I am hopeful that the conditions for holding such talks may exist soon.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that while the different political parties in Northern Ireland understand each other's position, the Government's position is as clear as mud? Will the Minister come clean on the long-term policies of the Northern Ireland Office? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has confirmed in writing that his objective is devolution, but that two fellow Members in the ministerial team have been canvassing in Upper Bann for a candidate who is opposed to devolution and wants integration? When will we get consistency in the Northern Ireland Office?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Government's position on political progress in Northern Ireland is absolutely clear. We are committed to seeking devolved institutions in


Northern Ireland to allow locally elected representatives to have a greater say in the decisions that govern their constituents' lives. With regard to Upper Bann, I am told that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong yet again. His party is having some difficulty in convincing the electorate about why its members are always to be found in the voting lobbies with the socialists.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As a general principle, does the Minister agree that in entering negotiations no party should be at a disadvantage? To ensure that the Unionists are not at a disadvantage at the negotiating table would the Minister accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should not be operating at full belt?

Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's first point that no one party should be at a disadvantage. With regard to his second point, he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently made it clear that in the context of such discussions on possible future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, we would give serious consideration to any implication for the agreement that such arrangements might have. I can confirm that in the context of those discussions, we would also consider including any proposal for an alternative to the agreement that the Northern Ireland parties might put forward that would advance the underlying objectives that I believe we all share.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that anybody who is serious about making political progress in Northern Ireland would want to address the relationships that go to the heart of the problem and have never been satisfactorily addressed? Those relationships are within Northern Ireland, within Ireland and between Britain and Ireland. Does he agree that if the Unionists, who say that they are British, do not trust the British Government to negotiate those relationships on their behalf, either with ourselves who share the North with them or with the Irish Government who share the island, then logically they should be willing to negotiate those relationships themselves?

Dr. Mawhinney: I think that it is common ground between the Government and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland that the relationships to which the hon. Gentleman refers must be addressed. That must be done first in the context of Northern Ireland, which means that the representatives of the Nationalist and Unionist traditions must sit down together, with the Government or without, to address those issues. In addressing them, other relationships will, of course, come into play.

Mr. Andrew McKay: In view of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), does my hon. Friend agree that less charitable people than I might think that one of the main obstacles to political progress in the Province is the intransigence of some of the political parties there?

Dr. Mawhinney: We have been seeking to address the political future of Northern Ireland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has devoted much time and energy to that. We have done that, recognising the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the various parties, and we have been seeking to cause arrangements to be put

in place that will enable them to talk together constructively with Government about an objective that I believe is shared by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Extradition

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State For Northern Ireland what proposals he is considering on extradition.

Mr. Cope: At the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, Ministers had a constructive discussion of arrangements for dealing with fugitive offenders. Officials were instructed to undertake a review of the situation and to report back to a future conference. My right hon. Friend will consider all proposals arising from this review.

Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he share the confidence of the Irish Government that the 1987 extradition Act will remedy the defects of the last three cases which were before the Irish Supreme Court?

Mr. Cope: The last three cases were, of course, disappointing, but we have to accept that they were the judgments of an independent judiciary on the basis of the then law. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the law has since been changed. The whole point of the study to which I referred is to consider whether the arrangements are now satisfactory for the future.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements regarding the extradition of ordinary decent criminals—[Interruption]—are working perfectly satisfactorily? However, where the person sought to be extradited is an alleged IRA criminal, the law, the courts and the Government of the Irish Republic put every obstacle in the way.

Mr. Cope: I would not entirely agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary. The phrase "ordinary decent criminals" is well understood in Northern Ireland and is in frequent use—I have become used to it myself —but it obviously came as a novelty to some hon. Members. The position in relation to terrorists has improved since 1985. That does not mean, of course, that the position is now perfect. That is why we are carrying out the study.

Mr. William Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman understands perfectly well that after the McGimpsey case, which clarified the position in the Irish Republic, it was a foregone conclusion that any extradition requests brought under the 1965 Irish Act on extradition were bound to fail. Does he recall that when the 1987 Act was being passed in the Irish Republic the Prime Minister said that it would make matters worse than under the 1965 Act? In the light of that, what possible confidence can the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member have that we will get any IRA murderer extradited from the Irish Republic to face justice in this kingdom?

Mr. Cope: I do not think that there is a sound legal basis for the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the effects of the McGimpsey case judgment on extradition. In view of the legal advice that I have received, I cannot support his assertion. In terms of his general question, I can tell him that of course there have been three refusals of


extradition for terrorists to which I have recently referred, but that compares with 38 refusals in the years preceding 1985 and, obviously, preceding the new legislation. Four terrorists have been returned to Northern Ireland since 1985, compared with only three in the preceding 15 years, so the position has improved. Of course we are not entirely satisfied—that is why we are having further discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: How can the Minister assure my constituents that the Irish Republic is a friendly neighbour to Northern Ireland when at this moment it is harbouring known terrorists who have killed some of my constituents? Does the Minister accept that the present extradition arrangements are the laughing stock of the world?

Mr. Cope: I do not accept that. If the hon. Gentleman has information and evidence to give to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which will assist us in catching criminals, wherever they may be on either side of the border, we shall be grateful to receive it.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the establishment of a committee to consider the effects of extradition? We hope that it will reach a conclusion that will be acceptable to the vast majority of people within all of our islands. Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State considered taking the initiative with other colleagues in the Government and looking again at the actual convention on the suppression of terrorism to try to limit the effects of political exemption and to make its scope much narrower and much more acceptable to the majority of fair-thinking people?

Mr. Cope: Yes, but the convention does not translate precisely into current legislation in many countries, not only the Irish Republic. It is a matter for agreement between the two countries involved. That is of the first importance. However, we shall pursue all those matters in the talks to which I have referred.

Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no place in the European Community for any country that protects those who commit political crimes? Would not it be a good idea, during the Irish presidency, to suggest a change in a constitution which helps to protect those who commit such crimes?

Mr. Cope: I think that we are already adopting the best manner to achieve improvements between this country and the Irish Republic.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I last met Ministers from the Republic of Ireland on 20 April, following the Intergovernmental Conference. The subjects discussed then included the political situation in Northern Ireland, cross-border security co-operation, arrangements for dealing with fugitive offenders, the question of confidence in the security forces and the system of justice and cross-border economic co-operation.

Mr. Canavan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the valid and constructive criticism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that it has failed in its declared objective of bringing peace precisely because it contains no coherent strategy for the peaceful reunification of Ireland? Will he assure us that meaningful dialogue towards that end will continue between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, whatever the outcome of his forthcoming discussions with Unionist leaders—including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not exactly renowned for his contribution to the peace movement?

Mr. Brooke: I pay tribute to the security co-operation between this Government and the Government of the Irish Republic in matter pertaining to cross-border activities. The hon. Gentleman's view of the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—at least in the gloss that he placed upon it—is novel, and not one which I share with him.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people on this side of the St. George's channel—and, I suspect, many on the other side—welcome the recent visit to Belfast by Prime Minister Haughey to talk to business men there and regard that sort of contact as extremely sensible and fruitful?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is correct in his description of the visit of Mr. Haughey, though he came as President of the European Community to a conference which was devoted to European economic matters. The widespread view of those who took part in that conference was that his visit was worth while.

Mr. McNamara: What progress has been made on the joint Anglo-Irish application for the cross-border element of the European structural fund, and when can we expect a statement about that?

Mr. Brooke: We are still engaged in discussions, but progress on the outline basis has been made.

Mr. Mallon: Is not it time that the Secretary of State told the House exactly what discussions have taken place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about cross-border co-operation in relation to the terms of EC directives? May we be assured that this time we shall not lose by default through failure to have proper discussions about those matters?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to structural funds or to Community regulations against which the Republic of Ireland was held to have offended and was taken to the European court. We have not yet had the conclusion of that matter. We shall wait to see the response of the Government of the Republic, but we have pressed on them that we expect them to adhere to the judgment when it emerges.

Unemployment

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are unemployed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland in March 1987 and March 1990.

Mr. Needham: The seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for March 1990—the latest available—show that unemployment now stands at 98,400. The corresponding figure for March 1987 was 123,500. This represents a fall of more than 20 per cent. during this period.

Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the political problems in the Province are attributable to structural weaknesses in the economy and former very high levels of unemployment? Does he agree that he has just given the House extremely good news? What was the trend in the Province in the early part of this year?

Mr. Needham: The trend in the Province in the last three months shows a proportionate decline greater than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The growth rate of the economy in Northern Ireland is standing up extremely well. As for the future, my hon. Friend is right to say that we must improve our training to meet the economic needs of the 1990s.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the long term the best hope of reducing the disparity between Northern Ireland and United Kingdom unemployment lies in improving the skills of the work force? What contribution is the Training and Employment Agency making to that?

Mr. Needham: The Training and Employment Agency will be crucial to our success. Its board has wide United Kingdom experience and, I am sure, will come forward with ideas about how we can best proceed. Our aim is that everyone seeking work should have a recognised vocational qualification within five years and that, by the year 2000, 60 per cent. of all those studying should have three national vocational qualifications or at least one A-level equivalent.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Each month the Department of Employment Gazette publishes unemployment figures by parliamentary constituency. If the employment situation is so good in Northern Ireland, why is unemployment in Northern Ireland constituencies so high that seven out of the highest nine unemployment figures occur in Northern Ireland constituencies?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties that we face in Northern Ireland because of the problems that we have with terrorism. He should, therefore, congratulate the Government on our achieve-ments to date in having an extremely successful inward investment programme, an economy which is growing very fast and the immense changes that are taking place in the towns, cities and villages of the Province.

Mr. Ron Brown: As unemployment will always be high because of the security situation, is it not about time that the Government thought positively about withdrawing British troops from Northern Ireland? That would be a vital contribution to the Irish situation which has to be looked at time and again. It is about time that the Government made a decision on that.

Mr. Needham: I can think of nothing that would do less for Northern Ireland's economy than if British troops were

to withdraw from Northern Ireland and security there were to become less stable. The key thing to do is to bring the communities together, continue with our programme of inward investment, improve training and continue along the path that has enabled us to succeed so brilliantly up to now.

Security

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on steps being taken to improve cross-border co-operation on security with the Eire Government.

Mr. Cope: Measures to improve security co-operation, particularly in the border area, are regularly discussed at Anglo-Irish Conference meetings, most recently on 19 April. In addition, regular meetings take place at all levels between members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. Progress has been made, but where further improvement is possible the Government are committed to securing it.

Mr. Riddick: Is it not the case that the Irish police in the border area are unable effectively to tackle IRA terrorists fleeing across the border from the north having just committed terrorist crimes because those Irish policemen are unarmed? Is not the obvious solution for the Irish Government to arm the Garda in the border areas or to place units of the Irish army on the border? Has my right hon. Friend raised those issues with the Irish Government and, if so, what response did he receive?

Mr. Cope: We frequently discuss all such aspects, but those are operational matters which must be for the authorities in the Republic to decide for themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing public anger, resentment and anxiety about the waste of taxpayers' money by a number of local authorities, highlighted yet again in an article in the Daily Mail today about Ealing? Has not the time come for a full inquiry into the matter and would not the best thing to do be to establish a Special Select Committee of the House with full powers to call for persons and papers so that the true facts can be laid bare?

The Prime Minister: I have indeed seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers and, if correct, it is a shocking indictment of the extravagance and profligacy of that particular local authority. My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the Audit Commission in identifying waste and making recommendations and it would be better if those recommendations were taken up more quickly. Nevertheless, I heard my hon. Friend's


suggestion, as I am sure did my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Bearing in mind that a large part of local authority spending comes from the taxpayer, he has a good point.

Mr. Kinnock: In view of his obvious desire to be of help to her, has the Prime Minister thought of putting the poll tax review into the hands of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? After all, one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is well aware that the most unfair system of local taxation was rates.

Mr. Kinnock: I hope that the right hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had at least one good idea—annual elections for councils, which has been Labour party policy for some time. Does the Prime Minister recall that when local authorities were tested last week the result was a net 300 seat gain for Labour, a net 11 council gain for Labour and a major increase in vote share for Labour? On second thoughts, does she think that that is perhaps what the right hon. Member for Henley had in mind?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley had many good ideas in his article, which of course will be considered, along with many others in the community charge review, to see what modifications and adjustments are necessary. With regard to structural changes in local authorities, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be well aware that those could not take place in the lifetime of the present Parliament. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley rightly said this morning that the present Conservative Government
would fight and win the next general election with the community charge in place.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that a special Select Committee should be set up to examine these matters? For instance, it could take evidence on the desirability of a roof tax and explore the possibilities as to how it could be implemented. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it should be specifically precluded from questioning any members of the Labour party, however distinguished, about whether they voted Conservative in the Ealing borough council election?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes the point more powerfully than I could. The people who turned out the Ealing Labour council did a good day's work.

Ms. Abbott: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Abbott: Has the Prime Minister read the small print in Tarzan's election address, which featured so prominent-ly in The Times this morning? Did she see the reference to the "virtuous circle" of falling inflation and a reduction in interest rates? Does she agree that, with interest rates at 15 per cent. and a rise in inflation due to be announced

tomorrow, she is so far removed from virtue in such matters that the best that she could hope for in a Heseltine Administration is a position as elected mayor of Dulwich?

The Prime Minister: The level of inflation that the Labour party criticises today is well below what Labour was able to achieve during the greater part of its time in office. I remind the hon. Lady that there are more jobs in this country than ever before—that is the basis of prosperity.

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the excellent local election result in Hillingdon, where the Conservatives won control? Does she agree with me that the principal reason for that victory was their proposal for a community charge of £289, compared with the Labour proposal of £366—a reduction of £77?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I welcome the evidence that Conservative councils not only cost less but give better services. I note that, as my hon. Friend says, there will be a substantial reduction in community charge under a Conservative council; nevertheless, Hillingdon Conservative council intends to spend an extra £1 million on schools, to devote more resources to care for the elderly and the handicapped and to cut council committees from 100 to 30.

Mr. Hood: When the Prime Minister visits Scotland later this week to pledge her full support for the poll tax in Scotland, will she also pledge her full support for the Secretary of State for Scotland as her friends on the Back Benches are insisting that he be sacked before the next election?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the best Secretaries of State that Scotland has ever had.

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend may know that I have an interest in a certain football club. One of our sayings is that we never change a winning team. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that as she was our centre forward and captain in 1979, 1983 and 1987, she is not planning to change our winning team? Does she agree that our supporters would be dismayed if we put a reserve centre forward and captain on the field, notwithstanding the fact the Labour party has second-rate ideas, second-rate policies and, as their own supporters know, a sub-zero leader?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend and I share the same goal. With myself as centre forward and my hon. Friend on the right wing, we should make a winning team.

Mr. Mallon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mallon: As a major player on the world political stage for the past 11 years, the Prime Minister must surely welcome the breakdown of artificial barriers throughout Europe. As she surveys those changes, does not it strike her that the division of Ireland is an anachronism which cannot possibly work administratively, politically or economically? Would not it be the mark of real statesmanship if the Prime Minister were to dedicate her remaining time in office to solving that problem and in that way making a lasting contribution to a peaceful united Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have clearly expressed their wish to stay a part of the United Kingdom. So long as that is so, they will remain a part of the United Kingdom. I hope and believe that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: While many improvements in management and efficiency are needed in local authorities, has my right hon. Friend seen the report by PA Management Consultants which says that improvements so far have been a direct result of legislation passed by the Government? Will she confirm that it is not the policy of her Government to repeal that legislation? Does she agree that the policy of the Labour party to repeal local government legislation would be a disaster for everyone?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The provisions of the legislation meant that local authorities had to go out to competition for many services, as a result of which they got better services at lower cost. The Audit Commission has also been active in seeing what further economies can be made. I hope that its conclusions will be carried into effect.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will want to send its deepest sympathy to the family of William Cartman, the sixth British worker to be killed

in the Channel tunnel, a project which seems to be costing almost a man a mile? Will she make it clear that it is entirely inadequate for the five companies of Transmanche Link to be fined only £10,000 each for the death of another worker last February? Will she assure the House and construction workers that the Government will bring forward emergency legislation to make mandatory a prison sentence on an employer who is found guilty of gross negligence following the death or serious injury of a construction worker? When will the carnage stop?

The Prime Minister: Of course we are concerned about that tragic accident. As the hon. Gentleman knows, m y right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be meeting the chief executive of Transmanche Link later this afternoon to discuss the safety of the site. Health and safety inspectors are investigating the accident, and they have taken immediate action. Two prohibition notices have been issued which have stopped the operation of the two tunnel-boring machines in the marine tunnels. It is too early to say what caused the accident. We all deeply regret it, and we send our sympathy to the bereaved relatives of the person who was killed.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks about the employees and workers in Dover engaged on the construction of the Channel tunnel. On a different subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for Dover."] —has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to read newspaper reports about the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who seems to believe——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister cannot take responsibility for that.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I must take the Business of the House first.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Pakistan Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [Lords], all of which, the House will be glad to know, are consolidation measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 15 MAY and WEDNESDAY 16 MAY— Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
At the end on Tuesday: motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251).
At the end on Wednesday: motion relating to the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
FRIDAY 18 MAY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 21 MAY—Opposition Day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.

Dr. Cunningham: Is not it abundantly clear that the House was persistently misled over the British Aerospace-Rover deal? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement as soon as possible by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so that the House may be given some frank answers about what exactly has been going on? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that to continue to cover up the facts of that case will do no credit to Parliament or to the Government?
Why has the Leader of the House introduced a new policy of denying debates on orders against which the Opposition have set down prayers, particularly when they relate to the poll tax? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his decision not to allow a debate on the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which relate to the implications for policemen of the poll tax? Ought not the police to have a clear view of the Government's position on that question before their annual conference begins in a few days' time?
Would not such a debate have the additional benefit of allowing the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to explain to the House why he believes that the poll tax is so unfair and far too high? As the right hon. Gentleman has so much support on the Government Back Benches, would not a decision to hold such a debate, and to allow him to speak, be widely welcomed by Conservative Members too?
Does not the report of the Select Committee on Social Services provide a damning indictment of Government policy towards the poorest people in Britain? Does not the report expose as totally bogus the persistent claims by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that people on low incomes have been doing well and have been fairly treated

by the Government? Does not their treatment contrast starkly with the hugely favourable treatment given to people on high incomes, who have had major reductions in their tax bills?
Will the Leader of the House provide early Government time for a debate on the report of the Social Services Committee and the widening gap in treatment between the poorest people in Britain and those who are very well off?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me first of all reject absolutely the hon. Members's suggestion that there is any question of a cover up in relation to the British Aerospace-Rover affair. He knows perfectly well that that matter is subject to investigation by one of the Select Committees of the House at present—quite apart from the separate matter of possible leaks of the reports of that matter, but the issue is being investigated by the Select Committee on behalf of the House.
As regards the arrangements for debates on prayers the hon. Gentleman is also being unusually and unjustifiably severe. Last week, I said that the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 were likely to be raised in an Adjournment debate next week. As a matter of fact, I now understand that, because of his commitments overseas with the Home Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will not be able to be present to initiate that debate. However, next week the House will debate two Opposition prayers, as I announced a moment ago. The Opposition will also have an Opposition day at their disposal at the end of next week, and if they wish to do so, they can make use of that day to give an opportunity to the House to debate the community charge and for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to take part.
As for the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, of course the Government are concerned about the mistakes in statistics discovered in that context. The Government moved openly and swiftly to correct those figures in the public domain. The fact is that even those figures show that there has been an increase in the living standards of the poorest people, and that would not have happened were it not for the general prosperity of the economy under the Government.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In the light of the representations made by the Liaison Committee regarding the importance of maintaining the link between Departments and the Select Committee system, could my right hon. Friend say whether he is yet in a position to take steps next week to facilitate the division of the Select Committee on Health and Social Services into two component parts, so that they continue to maintain individual Departments?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to add anything to what I told my right hon. Friend last week on that matter.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Who is responsible for determining the pay of people in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons? Is it the Head of Establishments? Is it the House of Commons Commission? Is it the Services Committee? Or is it the Leader of the House? And is it true that this year the staff will only get a 4 per cent. pay increase?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the hon. Member many times, there are proper and established mechanisms for staff and unions to put their grievances and concerns about pay and for those to be properly considered by the management, the staff inspectors and the House of Commons Commission. As I have also told the hon. Member on more than one occasion, the House of Commons Commission will consider aspects of that matter at its next meeting.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of an early debate on defence matters, particularly as they apply to the unification of Germany, and the enormous implications that that will have for NATO and the Warsaw pact in coming years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I can precisely meet my hon. Friend's request, but I hope that we can arrange a debate on the Army shortly, and that before too long there will be the opportunity for a debate on European affairs in one way or another.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House received an invitation to Denis Thatcher's 75th birthday party tonight, and will he be taking the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) with him?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not feel obliged to comment on that question.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the amount of interest in political union within the European Community, will my right hon. and learned Friend grant a debate on that subject in the near future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, I shall be looking for a chance for the House to debate European affairs before too long.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House prepared to make arrangements during the next few weeks for a special debate on the future of Antarctica, bearing in mind the fact that the Antarctic treaty nations will be meeting in Santiago in Chile to discuss the future of the continent? There have been a number of proposals for an environmental assessment to be made of the impact of mineral exploration on Antarctica and very loud demands from many countries for a wilderness park to be created in that very important continent. As the British Parliament is the only one which voted to support mineral exploration, which has been rejected by nearly every other signatory to the Antarctic treaty, does he agree that it is essential that the House debates the matter before the British Government representatives go to Santiago, so that they can represent the views of all of us in the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are concerned about the need to protect the Antarctic environment and believe that the policies they have been following are well directed to that end. They were set out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in a written answer on 4 May.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, on I May, the King of Belgium issued a royal edict endeavouring to override the

European Community directive on the use of non-hush-kitted aircraft in an endeavour to circumvent European law and to allow Ostend to continue to act illegally? Will he create an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter so that we can send a clear message to the European Commission that we are no longer prepared to allow mainland European countries to flout European law?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I am not aware of that precise point, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will certainly look into the matter, because we attach importance to compliance with European Community obligations and have the best possible record in that respect.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a discussion on the state of the franchise? The estimated population figures for over-18s compared with local government registration figures for England show that there could be 500,000 people missing from the electoral register. Is it not the case that the poll tax is not reformable because it disenfranchises people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no evidence whatsoever to support the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give further consideration to the pertinent question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on the future of the Select Committee on Social Services? Is he aware that strong rumours—in fact, more than rumours—are going around the House that the Government intend to separate that Select Committee so that it can properly monitor the two separate Government Departments. Bearing in mind the important work of the Committee, it is important that the current Committee can complete its inquiries. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reach an early decision on to how the matter can be resolved, to ensure that the Select Committee structure can work according to the procedures laid down by the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for offering what I understand to be a different point of view on that important matter. As I said, I cannot add anything further to what I said last week.

Sir David Steel: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier answer about the lack of a debate on the workings of the poll tax? Does he recognise that it is desirable that discussions should take place in the House as well as in the columns of The Times? Will he enable the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to have a chance to explain to the House how it was that he resolutely opposed inflicting the tax on his constituents in Henley, but voted twice the previous year to inflict it on us in Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not have the impression that the House has lacked opportunity for airing its views on the community charge. As I have already said, the Opposition have an opportunity to bring the matter before the House on Monday week.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the shadow Leader of the House that the Select Committee on Social Services did not accuse the Government of fraud or dishonesty on the low income statistics and that a genuine mistake was made? It


is rather irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition to accuse the Government, who have kept their promise to pensioners and who are spending more than any other Government on benefits, of fraud and dishonesty. The Select Committee did not, and we conducted the investigation.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The Government acted as swiftly as possible to publish correct figures in respect of those found to be mistaken. More generally, under this Government, pensioners' average total net income increased in real terms between 1979 and 1987 by 31 per cent.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House seen today's report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which shows that many disabled people are not applying for their benefits because they are humiliated before the boards? That is due to the structure and to some shocking behaviour by doctors. Is not it deplorable that the people who badly need those funds are denied them because they are treated in this shabby, shocking fashion? Can we have a debate on this next week, please?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not seen the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the amendment passed at the end of the Committee on the abortion provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill relating to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 means that there is now no time limit on certain abortions, such as those for mothers who might be considered likely to be physically handicapped or who might bear children who would be either mentally or physically handicapped? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that that was the intention of the House? Will he find time for a debate on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in view of that amendment, which is causing so much concern?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly not going to answer a question about the implications of an amendment which I do not have before me and which I have not considered, save to say that it was one of many decided on by the House during those proceedings. Most of those who have commented on the way in which the proceedings were conducted declared themselves impressed by the accuracy and consistency with which the results were recorded. There will be an opportunity to consider the matter again when the House considers the Bill on Report.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I know that the Leader of the House will recall the debate nearly four months ago, on 17 January, about the parliamentary contributory pension fund when I spoke as chairman of the managing trustees of the fund. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the deep concern among hon. Members of all parties for a statement and, in particular, about the pensions paid to the widows of our former colleagues? Will there be a full response next week to the submissions made on behalf of the trustees and can we expect a further debate soon?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been keeping him in touch with the progress of our various considerations on the matter, including the point to which he has referred and which concerns us all —the standard of benefits available for widows. I hope to be able to bring before the House proposals and the Bill itself before too long. I shall keep the right hon. Gentleman informed about the matter.

Mr. Derek Conway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a small—I hope —minority of the charge payers of Shrewsbury and Atcham who are aggrieved at the level are keen to get their hands round my throat by the 1992 general election? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that they are even keener to get their hands around the throats of the Labour-Liberal alliance which controls Shropshire county council and that they will not have the opportunity to do that until 1993? Will he therefore give the House an opportunity to consider amending section 7 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable one third of the county councillors in England and Wales to retire annually, so that the community charge can be truly accountable for those presently suffering?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to enable his constituents to make their feelings known to those who apparently represent their interests so inadequately, but I do not think that at this stage I can offer a Bill that would amend the structure of local government with the speed that he desires.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the far-reaching changes that the Government are making in the machinery of government? Having spent a decade slaughtering quangos, they are now setting up scores of partly independent Government organisations or "pingos"—the so called next steps agencies. The changes will have far-reaching effects on the conditions of service of civil servants and could have substantial implications for the accountability of those bodies to the House. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow a debate on that apparently technical matter, which is in fact a fundamental question of public and parliamentary accountability?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the Government will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his close interest in the matter. The changes that have been proposed along those lines have been pretty widely welcomed inside and outside the House, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's interest to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the civil service so that the House may better inform itself about the matter.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In view of the serious anxieties that have already been expressed this afternoon from both sides of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to arrange an early debate on the safety crisis in the channel tunnel? Is he aware that many of us who have warned about this matter feel that it is nothing short of scandalous that it has taken six unnecessary deaths for the channel tunnel bosses to get a carpeting for their deplorable safety standards? Will he at least arrange a statement next week on this afternoon's meeting between the Secretary of State for Employment and the head of the construction consortium?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say precisely how the matter may best be reflected in the House, but the fact that it has been raised and dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by more than one hon. Member during business questions underlines the importance of my bringing it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we supplement the work of the Select Committee on Members' Interests by having a debate on Members' outside interests, especially in view of the parsimonious attitude towards members of the staff? We have a set of double standards, with Tory MPs busy getting as many outside interests as they can but supporting the Government in their decision to give only 4 per cent. to the staff.
In the current issue of "Labour Research", 14 Tory MPs are listed as having failed to register their business interests. I know that the Leader of the House is concerned about the matter because he expressed his view during our debate on the conduct of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). Those MPs could then explain why they consistently vote for the poorest in the land to be penalised if they fail to fill in an income support form properly while getting away with similar behaviour themselves.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me make it absolutely clear that the terms and conditions of remuneration of the staff employed by the House are determined not by the Government but by the House of Commons Commission and other authorities representing the House as a whole. As I have already told the House, those matters are likely to be considered again by the Commission at its next meeting. They have nothing whatever to do with Government policy.
The registration of Members' interests is again a matter for the House. The House has made arrangements to deal with it, and the Select Committee is looking at the matter at present.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to resist what will inevitably be an increasing clamour from the Opposition Benches for a debate on the British Aerospace-Rover matter? That should not happen until the Select Committee has reported. So far as I can see, on the evidence available, there is nothing—absolutely nothing—to suggest that what was in The Guardian has any substance. It was a good deal, well done.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly content to accept the advice that my hon. Friend gave in the first part of his question.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Now that the people of Scotland have had over a year of the poll tax, and as the Conservative party was absolutely decimated in Scotland at the recent elections, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate to take place to give the people of Scotland a referendum on whether they want the hated poll tax?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that the swing against the Government in Scotland was smaller than in any other part of the country shows that the longer the people of Scotland live with the community charge, the better they come to like it.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Mellon): Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 942 in my name and the names of other hon. Members about the problems of the Health Service in Leicestershire?
[That this House notes with great concern the proposals of Leicestershire Health Authority to make cuts in services, because of current financial pressures; regrets that the Secretary of State felt unable to offer any help when he met an all-party deputation of honourable Members from Leicestershire on 3rd May; and asks him to reconsider his decision urgently.]
Will he arrange for an early statement next week by the Secretary of State for Health to tell us what he intends to do about health authorities such as Leicestershire and others whose budgets have been badly affected by their inability to sell land due to the collapse of the property market?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the particular aspect of the matter raised in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. However, I remind him that the allocation of money to the Leicestershire district health authority is a matter for Trent regional health authority. understand that, this year, the district received significantly more money than last year and provided for a real-term increase in its budget of almost 3 per cent. I shall bring the particular point that my hon. Friend raised to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House will know that he and his colleagues have been more than accommodating to the tobacco industry, mainly because it is a large employer of labour. Every Chancellor since the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office has assisted the tobacco industry. Yet today we have had word from the tobacco industry that it intends to close factories in Glasgow, Bristol and Ipswich. The industry claims that the reason for shedding the labour is 1992. I do not believe that, and I am sure that the Leader of the House does not believe it. Surely we should have an emergency debate to discuss the activities of the tobacco industry.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly will not try to pass judgment on the causes of structural change in the tobacco industry. I am sure that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor 1992 is the only cause. I shall bring the general point that he raised to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I recently had a categorical assurance from the consortium that is bidding with British Rail to build the high-speed rail link that it will make no contribution whatever to the costs that would be incurred were there to be a Maidstone parkway station. Can we have an early debate both to enable the distaste of the people of Kent to be expressed at a private organisation levying such a burden on the community charge and to debate the whole way in which private Bill procedure is used to override the norms of planning procedures?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate about the specific, relatively narrow point that my hon. Friend has raised. Clearly there may be further opportunities to debate the wider questions that underlie his point. I am


continuing my study of the private Bill procedure. Clearly there is a case for some changes. I hope to inform the House of our proposals before too long.

Mr. Alex Salmond: When can we expect a debate on a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on planning permission for test boring for nucler dumping at Dounreay? Will such a statement take into account the fierce local opposition to such dumping, including the 3:1 majority against it in the Caithness referendum last year? Can we have an assurance that such a statement will be made to the whole House of Commons, so that Scottish Members can question the Secretary of State for Scotland on it and that the information will not be sneaked out in the form of a written answer to some toadying Tory Back Bencher?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say when any statement on that matter will be made. I shall bring the point raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will no doubt reach his own sensible conclusion on the matter.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that, because of Rover's great success, there is growing anxiety in the west midlands, and particularly in the Birmingham and Oxford area, about the continual sniping campaign against Rover. Thousands of jobs are at stake. The Opposition seem to think that they can gain some mean-spirited public advantage by attempting to drag Rover through the mud and mire.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British Aerospace, which is investing £1,000 million in jobs and motor cars for this country, feels that it is fighting with one hand tied behind its back by the Labour party, even though that party says that it supports the workers? Let us have a debate on Rover. I believe that Rover, the public will and the workers will win. Let us have done with all the nonsense about £38 million. The £38 million is not as important as tens of thousands of workers' jobs in the motor industry.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the wider implications of the matter and emphasising the extent to which the way that the House and Parliament consider such matters can have an important influence on the employment prospects of the people of this country.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsbrough): I am sure —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A question has been asked, and we cannot have a debate across the Floor of the Chamber from the Benches below the Gangway.

Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that an important report from the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts was published yesterday. It was, in many ways, a highly controversial report, which should have been published nine months ago; it could have been, but it was held up by the Conservative party. The report is possibly the most important that the three Committees on which a Tory Member and I have served since about 1980 have published. The education system is moving into some deep

trouble because of the shortage, and developing shortage, of teachers, as anybody who visits the staff room and talks to teachers will know. Could we have what will be an important debate on the subject of education, because that report encompasses all the various aspects of education? There is a great deal of argument about it today in the press, but everybody agrees that it is an important report.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one doubts the importance of the issues covered by that report, or the report itself, which was received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the past 48 hours. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's reply to a Select Committee has to be properly considered and given first to the House. That will happen as soon as possible. The delay in the report's completion is no doubt due to the mishaps that befell the Committee during the report's consideration, including a change of Chairman following the leak of some aspects of the Committee's work. That underlines the importance of a proper investigation of such leaks and taking steps to prevent further such leaks.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the implications of the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts for the funding of education and the fact that the block grant system of funding education is not working satisfactorily, may I join those who are calling on my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate on education funding so that some of us can express our view that teachers' salaries at least should be funded centrally from the Exchequer?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That topic has been debated from almost every angle during the time in which I have been involved in politics—on the basis that whatever system is in place should be changed for something better because the grass is always greener on the other side of the procedure. Detailed comment on the report will have to await proper consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. David Clelland: May I join the appeals to the Leader of the House for a statement next week on working conditions at the channel tunnel? Could that statement include the involvement of the Economic League in the recruitment of labour for the project, and whether that has led to the exclusion from employment of trade union members with a history of agitating for safe working conditions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's specific point. I have already said that I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the wide interest in safety conditions on that project so that the matter may be properly considered.

Mr. Bob Dunn: The Leader of the House will be aware that most hon. Members wish to see a free and democratic Europe stretching from the Atlantic to, and including, white Russia. In the light of that, the House will be concerned as I am about the unfair and unfree elections taking place in Romania. If those elections are deemed unfree and unfair, how can the results be deemed otherwise? In the light of that, will the Leader of the House please arrange for a debate at the earliest appropriate time about the slide into anarchy that is taking place in Romania?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the whole House shares the concern for the future of the country and people of Romania and has high expectations for the electoral process that has been put in place there. For that reason, a number of steps have been taken to ensure the presence of a large number of independent observers at those elections, including, I think, some from the House. A wide interest is being taken in that matter, and the House will want to await with care the outcome of the report by the independent observers.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Leader of the House find time to let the House consider the trauma that is suffered by many innocent victims in my constituency as a result of the Stevens inquiry? Does he agree that John Stevens would be better employed concentrating on the problems within his own division, which are now being investigated by the Surrey police force?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot agree with that proposition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is following closely the progress of that investigation.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister provide time for a debate on security in Northern Ireland? The matter is urgent in view of the increased IRA activity, which is now worse than it has been for some years. The authorities have warned people about the danger of more and greater atrocities, the likelihood of which is, of course, much greater since the IRA has apparently been able to get its hands on Libyan arms stashed in the Irish Republic. The IRA has also been given encouragement by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dublin, which confirmed the Irish Republic's claim to the territory of Northern Ireland.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those matters will no doubt have been explored to some extent during Northern Ireland Question Time today. I shall bring the matters that my hon. Friend has raised to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When can we have emergency legislation to amend, or better still to abolish, the poll tax, especially now that the issue is being fast exploited by ambitious Tory MPs such as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who is after the Prime Minister's job, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is after the job of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to provide some exhilarating speculation, but I have nothing to say about that. The Government propose to complete their consideration of the scope and/or need for any adjustment in the community charge, and we shall do that at a measured pace with all deliberate speed.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Can we have an urgent debate on the specific subject of the effectiveness or lack of it of the European Community in dealing with human rights cases? I am thinking specifically of the failure of the European Community to act in concert in relation to hostages. Why are we all Europeans for some purposes, but the hostages are either French. Belgian, British or

Irish? Why cannot the members of the Community act together to secure their release? Why cannot the Community provide a forum to deal with the problem caused by the false imprisonment of the lorry driver in Greece? Why cannot it find a way to work together to resolve such problems? Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate during which we can consider that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises two separate questions. He knows that the Government are represent-ing as vigorously as we can our concern about the continued detention of Mr. Paul Ashwell, and we are continuing to press with sustained effort the case about which we all share anxiety, the case of hostages wherever they may be detained. The members of the European Community have been seeking through political cooperation to enhance the ability of the Community to work together on that, but I readily agree that it still falls short of the ideal.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the Leader of the House aware that a large number of parents, children and teachers from Tower Hamlets came to Parliament today to protest about the lack of hundreds of school places? Will he call an early debate to consider the position of education authorities which fail to carry out their duty to provide sufficient school places under section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and to consider Lord Justice Woolf's recent decision that that duty is not absolute, and the implications of that for children throughout the country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The duty has been defined in that way since 1944. Of course, it is subject to the rulings of the court from time to time. I shall bring the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to the possibility of a debate on Rover's takeover by British Aerospace? That would give the Opposition the opportunity to tell the House why they have had such a sudden change of mind on that issue. Is not it true that, in 1986, the Opposition bitterly criticised the Government when they tried to sell Rover to the highest bidder—Ford or General Motors? Are not they now complaining because we have not sold Rover to the highest bidder? Perhaps we have underestimated the extent to which the Opposition have converted to free market forces.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that we should be too optimistic about the Opposition's conversion to any set of consistent policies. They appear to be dominated by opportunism from beginning to end.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Will the Leader of the House, as the custodian of our interests, help the whole House by investigating the problem of answers —or non-answers—from Ministers? Talking to other hon. Members has shown me that it is a common problem. We are receiving non-answers to our questions, and the standard of reply is declining. Will the Leader of the House consider that problem, for the sake of us all?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not detect any general feeling that there has been any significant variation in the


standard of answers for many years. This Government certainly endeavour to provide the best possible information, consistent with the remainder of their duties.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Can we have a debate next week that would allow us to consider the Labour party's record when it was in control of the London borough of Ealing? We could then examine the revelations in today's Daily Mail and other newspapers, and I could express the concerns of my constituents. Some 14 of the 17 new councillors elected were Conservative gains across the borough of Ealing. We want to know why the Leader of the Opposition has consistently said that the Labour-controlled Ealing council gave value for money and was a good council, when it appears to have been guilty of serious maladministration. The people of Ealing wholeheartedly rejected the council's Labour members.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on yet again having drawn attention to the misdeeds of the Labour party in the borough of Ealing. I am glad to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on being a beneficiary of the efficient electoral decision by the people of Ealing.

Mr. Greville Janner: May I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for a debate on Health Service provision in Leicestershire and the deterioration in the services that Leicestershire people receive? It is an all-party matter. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are enraged about their treatment, and not least about the cavalier way in which we were received by the Secretary of State for Health, who refused to reconsider the matter and who clearly had a closed mind. As the editorial in the Leicester Mercury said last week, the Government should take action. All parties are demanding that they do so.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not very well impressed by the style and manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to support the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I have already told the House that there has been a significant increase in the total resources available to that health authority. I shall bring the point, in its more precise form, to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging a debate on the spread of satanism and devil worship in the United Kingdom and the involvement of children? [Interruption.] I well remember the reaction in the House 10 years ago, when I warned of the spread of child abuse. I was greeted with disbelief, but we now know differently. Two years ago, I warned of the spread of devil worship, satanism and black witchcraft—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dickens: We now know that that is true because of the NSPCC report. Such a debate would help me to identify others in this House who are willing to stand up to those people. In all honesty, I think that the House of Commons is weak on this subject.

Mr. Skinner: There is the first suspect—Mr. Speaker, who wears a wig and is all in black.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In view of my hon. Friend's self-proclamation of his powers of prophecy in respect of these matters, it would not be wise of me to dismiss altogether the warnings that he utters about devilish-sounding things in the form of satanism, devil worship and black witchcraft, but I cannot promise an immediate debate on the matter.

Mr. Ron Brown: I assure the Leader of the House that these days the only people who crucify one are those on the Labour party's NEC, and I speak from personal experience.
More important at this stage, may I voice my support for the demand that we have a special debate to discuss the middle east hostages question? Such a debate would be important for the House, for the families of those concerned and as a matter of principle. Or is the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the British Government still committed to a pro-Israeli policy, remembering that that country is responsible for a lot of the trouble in the area and for much of the terrorism?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I should accept with alacrity advice from the hon. Gentleman about the hostages question. I assure him—the House must surely be in no doubt about this—that we are all continuously, seriously and desperately concerned about our hostages. Certainly the Government are.
To answer the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I get the impression that he is complaining about the continued application in his party of red witchcraft. That must be a matter for him and his party to sort out.

Mr. George Foulkes: Did the Leader of the House hear the endorsement that the Prime Minister gave to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Did it remind him of what she said about other Cabinet Ministers just before she sacked them? In view of that, will the deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) will be dealing with Scottish business in the House as Secretary of State next week and for the remainder of this Parliament?

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Yes, next week and next year and the year after that.

Mr. Foulkes: The alternative being suggested—who is not the gabbier on the Government Front Bench below the Gangway—by certain Scottish Tory Members is causing alarm throughout Scotland.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can reply even more confidently. I am confident that my right hon. and learned Friend will be continuing to serve the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom in a ministerial capacity for many years to come, well beyond 1992.

Mr. Bill Michie: I, too, was disappointed at the reply that the Leader of the House gave to the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) about National Health Service funding. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many health authorities are suffering from underfunding? Many early-day motions are


pointing that out, including one applying to Sheffield, which refers to underfunding for mental health. It would benefit Members in all parts of the House to be given time to express our fears and worries about the whole business of underfunding in the NHS.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The total resources available to the NHS throughout the country as a whole during Conservative control have grown by more than 40 per cent. in real terms. If Opposition Members wish to debate the matter more specifically, they can raise it on one of their own days.

Imperial Tobacco Factory, Bristol

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The shock announcement at noon today of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory in Brisol, South with the loss of 696 jobs.
The announcement, which is the direct trading of jobs for land speculation in Bristol, stunned the work force and Bristol. The matter is important because Bristol, South is an area of long-term high unemployment. The work force are isolated because of poor, inefficient public transport. When the factory was built in 1970, the then W.D. and H.O. Wills promised us that, with the revolutionary design of its factory, it could convert production from tobacco to confectionery in a week.
Hanson plc, which owns Imperial Tobacco, is a vast and wealthy corporation and could have afforded alternative production. W.D. and H.O. Wills, Imperial and Hanson have historic links with Bristol and have made their fortunes on the back of the Bristol work force.
The closure has been announced as a result of the closures in the run-up to 1992. The Bristol work force will be unemployed, not because it lacks skills but because the company is too greedy to diversify.
I ask for an emergency debate because this important matter has implications for Bristol and for our manufacturing base. The Hanson corporation which advertises its international success, has brought unemployment to Bristol. For Bristol, 1992 means unemploy-ment, and that is a matter which we should discuss.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The announcement at noon today of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory at Bristol with the loss of 696 jobs.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has to say about the matter, but, as she knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give her application precedence over the business set down for today or Monday. I regret that in this case the matter that she has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit her application to the House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the three questions on the motions relating to European Community documents.

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 4699/90 and 4779/90, relating to health conditions for the production and marketing of live bivalve molluscs and of fishery products, and 4783/90, relating to animal health conditions for the marketing of aquaculture animals and products be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 4796/90, relating to animal health requirements for marketing certain animals and products of animal origin be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.


That European Community Documents Nos. 4799/90 and 5598/90, relating to health rules for the production and marketing of milk and milk products be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We now reach a major milestone in the Bill's progress. After its consideration on Report during the past two days, with more than 17 hours of debate on the Floor of the House without any guillotine, we arrive at Third Reading.
I begin by expressing my appreciation to those who served on the Standing Committee which had 38 sittings and considered every line of the Bill which now runs to well in excess of 170 clauses and 12 schedules. I hope that I speak for all those who participated in Committee and on Report when I say that I hope that no one will feel that that was time misspent.
I have had the privilege of taking part in the Committee and Report stages of a number of major Bills, not least, in the previous Session, the Children Bill. I have always believed that Parliament has a role to play in the consideration of every Bill, which is not an optional extra in the process of government or some kind of tedious and necessary excursion to fill in time between the Government conceiving an idea and carrying it through, but a vital part of the process of ensuring that legislation has a fair chance of being coherent and convincing in its detail and hopefully fairly broadly acceptable in its principle.
I said at the outset of Parliament's consideration of the Bill that I did not believe that a measure had ever been brought before the House that could not be improved in Committee. I would genuinely like to thank all those who took part in Committee; and the fact that we ended up yesterday and the day before with more than 700 amendments and new clauses—more than 500 of them Government amendments—reflecting our discussions in Committee, is a sign not of the weakness of the process but of its strength.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends who participated in the Committee for the loyal support that they extended to me, and the tremendous effort that they put in. They each made their contributions: this was certainly not a Bill in which one was backed up by a group of silent hon. Members—far from it. I would not have wished it to be so. My colleagues rightly spoke out. I was grateful to them for giving me the benefit of their advice and assistance, and for their help in our meetings associated with, but held outside, the Committee on some of the vexed issues.
As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) constantly reminded us of the amount of work that Parliament—through that distinguished Select Committee —had already put into the Bill. He spoke in an exceptionally well-informed way, which reflected his commitment to the measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) comes to the House after a career in broadcasting. He too showed a remarkable grasp of the issues, and a willingness to put forward his view—never in an overweening way, and never seeking to use his experience


to crush those of us who had not had the opportunity of working within the industry. He was always a tower of strength.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is another hon. Member who comes to the House having worked on the technical side of the broadcasting industry. I thank him for the benefit of his experience, and for his work in highlighting, along with other hon. Members—notably the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—the problems of the deaf. If every Minister were as well served by such loyal and devoted colleagues as I was in Committee, we would all have reason to be pleased.
I want to make it clear, however, that it would have been impossible for the Committee to do its work without a full-hearted willingness to participate on the part of Opposition Members. I hope that I assisted that process by making it clear that I was not in the business of rejecting people's opinions just because they sat on a different side of the Committee. To the best of my abilities, I said, I would endeavour to weigh the arguments, and, if I was persuaded of the need for change, I would either make that change immediately—if I had discretion to do so—or advocate change to my colleagues.
I have served on a number of Committees with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He knows that I have the greatest admiration and respect for him as a parliamentarian who never allows narrow partisanship to come in the way of sensible debate and good progress. It is a sign not of weakness but of strength that Opposition Members are prepared to debate the measure seriously, rather than try to make partisan capital out of it. I have always felt that the weakness of the parliamentary system is never more exposed than when Committee stages are simply used as a mechanism for delay, unaligned with any serious attempt to join issue on the merits of the case.
All three Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen won the admiration of all Conservative Members for the manner in which they put their points.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?

Mr. Mellor: I am coming to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). There was not one Committee member who did not play a full part in the debate. On Report I said—and I am happy to repeat it —that the hon. Member for Bradford, South has strong opinions, and obviously would not expect me to agree with all or even most of them. I said on Second Reading, however, that I respected his skill as a parliamentarian, especially on technical matters. I respected too the experience he had gleaned from his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. On Second Reading I gave him a commitment that I would study the Bill closely to see whether the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny were adequate. I concluded in a number of instances that they were not and I have made changes. That was thanks to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
I understand that the Opposition and minority parties would not have introduced the Bill that we introduced. I do not seek to make party capital out of thanking them for the efforts they have made. That having been said and having been understood between us, a full-hearted attempt

was made to join issue and to recognise that, whether people like it or not, the legislation is likely to be around for a considerable time. If it can be improved, it should be. If it can have a broader consensus behind it, that is good, because broadcasting is fundamental to a free society and should never become a narrow partisan matter.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It has been made one.

Mr. Mellor: I do not believe that it has; certainly I do not see it as being partisan in the position in which we are today.
I was able to accept a substantial number of the points raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I was only too willing to profit from his experience as a Minister and a lawyer. I hope he feels that he has made a substantial contribution to the Bill.
It was a happy chance for all of us that the passage of the Bill coincided with the televising of Parliament and with what I believe has been an altogether beneficial renewed interest by the media, and then by the public, in the workings of Parliament. It was all to the good that the parliamentary Committee that was most the subject of media attention during recent months was the Committee on this Bill. No one who participated in Committee need feel ashamed of Parliament being displayed through the Committee to those interested in watching. One could face one's constituents and say that what we had done was a necessary part of the proceedings and was not a waste of time. Our debates in Committee were not like those which we have from time to time which can bring Parliament into disrepute because we seem to be more like members of a school debating society than of a forum discussing serious legislation. I am glad to have had a part to play in it all. I want to express my warm admiration for all who helped in the process.
It may be worth pointing out the practical effects of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. I shall enumerate briefly some of the points which arose in Committee and which the House endorsed on Report.
There has been a thickening of the quality threshold for Channels 3 and 5 by the addition of the requirements for children's and religious programming and for high quality regional news, and of the power for the ITC to publish an illustrative specification of the elements of programming which it would expect to see in a diverse programme service. The quality threshold was always a serious and substantial concept. It has become even more substantial as a result of the changes which we have made.
As a key part of that, I point to the enhancement of the regional content of Channel 3 services, including the introduction statutorily of the concept of dual regions, with the distinct regional programming which the statute now requires, the power for the ITC to require applicants to specify what regional resources and facilities they plan to use, and the requirement that Scotland should not be a single franchise area. These, and more, show that all of us, whatever reservations we may have from time to time about the way the system performs, strongly endorse, and believe that our constituents warmly support, the idea of a regionally-based Channel 3. That regional base has never been more firmly enshrined in statute than it is now, as a result of our work.
Perhaps more important for many people, the amendments to the exceptional circumstances provision


now make clear beyond peradventure—to use that tedious legal phrase—that exceptionally high quality can displace the highest money bid. I hope that the overt striking of a fair balance between quality and price has been one of the major achievements of the Committee.
We have recognised also the importance of training, through an amendment that allows the ITC to require applicants for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to state what training provision they intend to make to sustain their programming plans.
I turn to describe briefly some of the changes made in respect of radio. I had the opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland yesterday that, although I believe that most public attention has been focused on television, it is a significant Bill for radio—and radio is a most significant part of this country's media scene.
I am particularly glad that we have made changes to the remits of the three new national commercial radio stations, to ensure a genuine enhancement of listener choice. Obviously, we cannot guarantee that merely what we do here will guarantee three effective commercial national radio stations—that will depend on the ingenuity of the franchise applicants, and on their willingness and ability to create a loyal listenership. However, we are well on the way to achieving that objective, and we have built the right framework.
Constituents coming to my advice centre ask me, as I imagine they ask other right hon. and hon. Members, "What is the point in our saying anything about broadcasting, because they"—meaning some far-distant power structure—"will determine the issue." I make no bones about it—I did not appreciate at the outset how much popular support there is for the public teletext service. That is because I myself am not a regular user of it. I admit to being deeply impressed by the range of topics carried on teletext, and, interestingly—and I do not say this to knock the BBC, of which I am a firm supporter —by how much wider is the choice on Oracle than on Ceefax. That is an interesting reflection of how good the commecial sector can be when it really gets going. The flood of letters and representations from all sectors of the community is a sign of the importance attached to an Oracle-type service. It is an indication of the strength of our parliamentary system, not of its weakness, that such expressions of public will are not then rejected but bring a changed decision. That is what living in a sophisticated democracy is all about.
It is the duty of Members of Parliament, as well as a pleasure and a privilege, to make clear to Ministers through forums such as the Committee the strength of public feeling. A number of right hon. and hon. Members did so in that forum, as well as in their private correspondence. It is the pleasure, if not the duty, of Ministers then to reconsider—and if they come to see things in a different light, not to be afraid to make changes. That was certainly true in relation to various other issues. I was glad to hack out some of the police powers that had been put in the Bill. That was done not with any malicious intent but as part of the inevitable scissors-and-paste work that goes into a consolidation measure, when one has to take out of an old statute pre-existing powers and fit them into a new Bill. Quite obviously, the original police powers

struck many people as excessive. Fair enough. That point was effectively made—and was, I hope, effectively answered by action.
I have already referred to the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. I should mention also my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), in relation to television subtitling services for the deaf. They were the subject of a highly effective campaign by the Deaf Broadcasting Association which had the support of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and which gave the House an opportunity to consider the merits of the case and to set a far more challenging framework for progress by broadcasting authorities in that regard than otherwise would have been possible. I could go on but I shall not.
Parliament has had a useful and worthwhile opportunity for scrutiny which has led to significant changes in the Bill. Other work still remains to be done and is carried over into the other place. We still need to put the finishing touches to the new arrangements for religious broadcasting, and I feel particularly grateful for the sensible way that colleagues have approached the subject. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has been helpful.
At a time when there is an unprecedented expansion in broadcasting opportunities, nobody wants to preclude decent. sensible, mainstream religious organisations from playing a part. but we do not want to open a door through which cults will come which are ever eager and have plenty of resources——

Mr. Bob Cryer: Satanism and devil worship.

Mr. Mellor: I shall resist adding to the debate on Satan worshippers, much as it would intrigue me to do so.
There are also problems with unscrupulous television evangelists in the United States who we do not want to see here. Certainly people such as Billy Graham are responsible, but others have besmirched the principles of religion. One must consider the exploitive power of the media when coupled to unscrupulous messages. We are striking a balance which will permit the former, responsible people while keeping out the latter.
There are many other sorts of activity—for example, cable and subscription piracy—where there is a lot more work to be done in the other place.
I do not want to outstay my welcome, but I shall add a few more words. First, the Bill reflects a tremendous amount of public consultation which took place long before it came into being—for example, the Green Paper on radio and the White Paper on the Government's proposals.

Mr. Buchan: And thanks to the Peacock report?

Mr. Mellor: And the Peacock report, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Even if the principal recommenda-tions of a report are not accepted, it is significant because of the extent to which it focuses attention on the issue. When there are a set of robust conclusions the report forces either an agreement or a requirement to establish a separate set of opinions, if one wishes to take issue with it.
I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the Foreign Secretary, under whom I served as the Minister responsible for


broadcasting prior to the last election, and to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary who did so much to prepare the Bill.
Whether one likes every part of the Bill, there has never been a Bill which has been so carefully considered and prepared after such extensive public consultation.
In no sense is the Bill a gratuitous addition to the body of statute. It would have been remiss of the Government not to recognise that new opportunities are provided by the remorseless onward march of technology for the enhancement of viewers' and listeners' choice. The Government would have been criminally negligent if they had failed to take advantage of that. If viewers and listeners' choice is to be enhanced, it has to be done within a statutory framework, which has had the endorsement of the House. The consequences for our community will be considerable and beneficial.
In due course the Bill will rank as one of the major reforms of broadcasting in the past 50 years. Every decade or so history shows us that there are times at which a significant step forward is possible. In the 1950s we were able to create the ITV system. In the early 1970s it was the regional commercial network, and in the 1980s, Channel 4. Because people plainly respect much of what is broadcast and because there is an inevitable fear of change—the easiest response to change is to resent and regret it and to think that it is bound to make things worse—each major change was accompanied by voices saying that broadcast-ing would he seriously damaged. While it is always important to weigh arguments on their merits and not to hesitate to deal with them if they appear to have substance, I have taken comfort in the fact that most of the Cassandra voices were wrong about the previous changes.
In 10 years many people will look back on the Bill and say that it was a good thing that Parliament seized the opportunity at this time. The benefits that flow from the Bill will be considerable and I shall briefly enumerate them: a tremendous expansion in radio, with hundreds of new local and community stations made possible, as well as three new national stations; in mainstream television, a far more open and publicly-understandable process for the granting of Channel 3 franchises with the quality of British broadcasting preserved by the selection process; a new Channel 5 which I expect to become a significant and welcome addition to the range of television programmes.
The satellite revolution is upon us. There are two bold ventures involving a number of British channels on the Astra satellite as well as British Satellite Broadcasting operating on a high-powered satellite. I do not know whether those brave ventures will win an audience and it is not a matter for the Government to determine that issue in one way or another or to have a view about it. It is always good to be offered an enlargement of choice. It is a tribute to the entrepreneurial vigour of the British economy that people are willing to invest substantial sums of money to produce a range of programme services that are not about pap or the lowest common denominator of programming but are about, for example, Britain's first 24-hour news channel on Sky, or a whole range of new and welcome programming decisions on BSB, which will greatly enhance viewing for people such as myself who are interested in the arts. One of the good and most notable things about BSB is its commitment to arts programmes and to new production and the amount of money that it has put into them.
Obviously, satellite poses us a dilemma as well as an opportunity. Satellite television can be exploited by cynical people to peddle filth, and none of us wants that in an era when filth is not merely the odd bold blue film such as people may have misty-eyed recollections of seeing at rugger club parties long ago. The level of filth today can be damagingly exploitive, and the link with crime, in particular crime against women, cannot be denied. That is why we must welcome the Council of Europe's convention —I recommend the Patronage Secretary for his role in that —which allows us to deal with the peddling of unacceptable programmes across national frontiers and, in a quicker time-scale than any of us dreamt possible, gives us the ability to deal with such matters.
We have set a framework for satellite broadcasting within which it will be possible for it to develop. So the face a British broadcasting will be altered by the Bill, but to the benefit of the public. It is patronising and wrong to suggest that the public have all the choice that they need at the moment. They have not. Experience shows that when the public are offered enhanced choice they seize it. For example, the new audience figures for some of the new radio stations in London—Jazz FM, for example—are a sign of how much people want extra choice.
The Broadcasting Bill offers tremendous opportunities for the broadcasters. It offers an unprecedented expansion in British broadcasting so that people are not obliged merely to shuttle between the BBC and independent television, but have access to a host of independent production companies and satellite companies whose interests are advanced by the Bill. Instead of a complacent duopoly, we will have a free-wheeling, innovative and broad-based broadcasting industry that will serve the interests not merely of the United Kingdom but of a wider world community.
Members on both sides of the House will agree that if we believe in the quality of British broadcasting, it should not be a well kept secret confined to these shores. We should recognise the opportunities for good British programme making around the world. My vision of British broadcasting is not merely that it satisfies a domestic audience with an ever greater range of good quality programmes, but that we are an effective base for Europe and for worldwide programmes. If the new ventures are successful, there will be an inexorable rising tide of demand for new programmes and I believe that we in Britain are exceptionally well placed to meet that demand. That is why I am proud of the Bill and proud that it will receive its Third Reading today.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the role of the Opposition and other parties in Committee and throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I also thank his officials for their assistance with the more complicated and technical parts of a Bill which started life quite large and has put on considerable weight since. I should also like to thank my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench and the other members of the Committee.
There is only one question to ask about the Bill: will the television and radio services that it delivers be better, worse or simply different? The Bill is all about viewers and listeners, and their interests should be of primary concern. Certainly radio and televison will be different because of


the great expansion that new technology makes possible. We welcome that new technology and the extra choice and variety that it could have been used to provide.
We believe that the Bill fails, however, largely because it abandons much of the sensible basis upon which our television and radio system in the BBC and commercial sectors has been built and developed. The cornerstone of that system has been the commitment to public service broadcasting, the "must carry" rule which has guided broadcasters about the essential core of what must be on offer to viewers and listeners.
The Minister said that the new Channel 3 will be "a notch below public service broadcasting". That nice Mr. George Russell, the IBA chairman and midwife to the Channel 3 system, has said that it will be about 80 per cent. of what is now seen and heard. So it is admitted that it will be different, and worse, in the sense that real choices will be made not by those who watch and listen, but by those who can afford the cash to buy the right to broadcast.
Yes, there will be more choice, with more channels and stations from which to choose, but experience in West Germany, France and Italy teaches us that the likely result will be more choice from a less varied menu. The Minister's "notch below public service broadcasting" will almost certainly mean fewer current affairs programmes and documentaries, fewer costume and other dramas and less educational and social action broadcasting—in other words, a general fall in fact-based programmes and an increase in entertainment-based ones.
The Government claim that the Bill is about widening choice. The White Paper bravely stated:
The Government places the viewers and listeners at the centre of broadcasting policy.
But the Bill abandons viewers and listeners to the outcome of what it terms the broadcasting market.
IBA research tells us that about 50 out of every 100 viewers want fewer variety shows, 44 out of every 100 want fewer chat shows, and an impressive 55 out of every 100 viewers want more educational programmes, plays and drama. The demand for more health and education programmes comes from about 48 out of every 100 viewers, and 36 out of every 100 want to know more about science and technology. Lest that be thought an elitist plea, there is little or no difference between what those with more money watch compared with those with less money. The removal of the public service broadcasting provisions which have guaranteed such factual programming will leave those demands unmet because such programmes are among the most expensive to make, so the Bill fails on the test of a wider choice of a more diverse range of quality programming.
The Bill is not all bad news. There has been a double victory for those forced to listen with their eyes due to deafness and hearing impairment. We welcome plans to ensure that, within five years of the start of the new Channel 3, half its programming will have to be subtitled. We also welcome the Government's change of mind about the need to preserve space for a commercial teletext service. Almost one person in every 100 has a hearing impairment and about 300,000 people are deaf. We are due only small thanks for the extra subtitling because those of us who can hear should have listened and responded earlier.
It is interesting that the Government did not leave that to market forces alone. They made the same admission about the need to require children's and religious programming. In other words, unless it is provided for in the Bill, it is unlikely to be done.

Mr. Cryer: Does not the same apply to training? The Bill provided an opportunity to require an obligation for training, but it has been sidestepped by the Government and the Bill is much the poorer in that respect.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right about the omission of training from the face of the Bill, although to be fair to the Minister he took the point and has made some undertakings about what will be done in another place. We welcome the setting up of a training agency by independent producers and the television companies in Wales, setting a good example of what needs to be done in an immensely important sphere.
There is much in the Bill that the Government were unwilling to change. Why on earth was there that silly insistence on removing the right of every viewer to watch one or other of the major national sporting events, as 87 out of every 100 people watch those great family occasions? Now, satellite channels watched by fewer than three in every 100 people can outbid the new Channel 3 or the BBC for the right to show the cup final, the Derby or test cricket. It is no use saying that it will not happen. The House will remember that when West Germany won the men's and women's finals at Wimbledon, fewer than four in every 100 viewers in West Germany were able to watch that live because the rights had been bought by a cable station.
Why in heaven's name have the Government put the future of ITN at risk by insisting that its users—that is, those who fund it—should have only minority control? Non-profit-making ITN will become ITN plc with a need to make profit. That will either increase the cost of news collection or bring cuts in its activities. After the elaborate process whereby the Independent Television Commission will decide who can buy a station, why can the whole thing be put at immediate risk days after success because the Government will not agree to a moratorium on takeovers until the new licence holders have been able to turn their promises into screen performance?
We argued long and hard about the need to restrict the holdings of newspaper owners in television. They are all treated the same in the Bill—bar one. Mr. Murdoch is able to own 35 per cent. of our daily and Sunday press and 100 per cent. of Sky Television. It is not only the Labour party which sees danger in that dominance of our media by one wealthy voice. The rules should not depend on where and with whom Mr. Murdoch eats his Christmas dinner. That is why an incoming Labour Government will ensure that Mr. Murdoch is given equality of treatment and a sensible period in which to divest himself of one or other of his interests.
Poor Channel 5—born with just 15 lines of clothing, it stands parentless in an uncertain world. The Minister excited the House the other night with his vision of a national channel with 50 towns and cities opting out for periods of the day, although we still do not know what it will do for the rest of the time. The Government claim that the new Channel 5 will cover 70 per cent. of homes. The Minister's 50 cities plan will cut that to 60 per cent. of homes, thus making it of less interest to investors and


advertisers, especially as it will exclude large swatches of the better-off London and south-east area, which is of particular interest to advertisers.
At the heart of our objections to the Bill is the way in which the Government plan to sell off the right to broadcast. Even the changes made to enable the Independent Television Commission to award licences to a bidder short on cash, but with substantially higher quality programming, do not meet those objections. Cash paid on top of what it is planned to spend on programming will mean less money on the screen and over the airwaves. The change will help, but in the end the highest bidder, or something near to that, will win.
The Bill will not ensure a range of diverse programmes of quality. It will not guarantee innovation, excitement, experiment and expanded opportunities for views and voices not now heard. It puts the accountants in the driving seat. Instead of the system serving viewers and listeners, it is being used to serve them up to advertisers, and the viewers and listeners will be the poorer for that. That is why we shall oppose Third Reading.

Mr. Roger Gale: It saddens me that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) found it necessary to be so churlish. His speech was as phoney as the "doughnut" around him in the House. The House is now in the "infotainment" business. The viewers need to know that as a result of Mr. Peter Mandelson's directions, six hon. Members are sitting around the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, but that there are very few others on the Opposition Benches. The synthetic comments of the hon. Member for Erdington, I suspect, were probably drawn up by the same author, which is a great shame. In Committee, the hon. Member for Erdington was extremely generous and helpful. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, it was probably one of the most constructive and creative Committees on which any of us are likely to serve in this place.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the generosity of his remarks and for his thanks to colleagues of all parties. I doubt whether any hon. Member would suggest that it has not been a pleasure to work with him in Committee. I doubt whether any hon. Member, in spite of the comments of the hon. Member for Erdington, seriously believes that we have not made real progress on the Bill.
Etched on the heart of the BBC in Portland place are the words:
Nation shall speak peace unto nation".
When those Reithian sentiments were expressed, the BBC really meant that the English nation shall speak unto other nations in the Queen's English.
That world of broadcasting is changing. We face the imminent prospect of pan-European broadcasting. Seventeen television channels are already available to viewers in many parts of this country. A further 16 Astra channels will be available later this year. The Hughes corporation of America plans to launch a 100-channel satellite of digital transmission. The prospects are enormous and the opportunity for the programme makers is considerable. Only the British could regard the prospect of a tenfold increase in the size of audience available to them as a threat rather than a challenge.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's mathematics. Top viewing figures these days can reach about 20 million people. How will there be a tenfold increase with a population of about 56 million?

Mr. Gale: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening and had been aware that I was talking about pan-European broadcasting, he would have grasped quickly that a potential Europewide audience of more than 400 million people will be available to programme makers in this country. As a programme maker, I regard that as a considerable challenge and opportunity.
I regret deeply the churlish and vindictive attack that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made yesterday on the proprietor of The Times and other newspapers, Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Gentleman work for Mr. Murdoch?

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I work for Mr. Murdoch. The hon. Gentleman has sat through hours and hours of debate in Committee and we have sat for hours and hours listening to him. I suspect that, in due course, we shall have the fourth repeat of his speech. He should know by now that I do not have a declared or any other interest in any of Mr. Murdoch's operations. However, I have a considerable regard for the money he has invested in the future not only of print journalism in this country, but of satellites and the development of the satellite industry. I am talking about precisely that now.
As was said yesterday, there are 22 national newspapers in this country which are owned by 11 companies. There are well over 1,000 daily and weekly, regional and local newspapers, none of which is in Mr. Murdoch's hands. The prospect facing the British viewer——

Mr. Buchan: rose——

Mr. Gale: I will not give way at this point.
The prospect facing the British viewer is of 47 or 48 channels of television by terrestrial broadcast and from satellite in the coming year. The prospect of four of those being in the hands of somebody who also owns a few newspapers is not a threat to democracy in any shape of form.
My hon. and learned Friend knows that I should like to see the rules relaxed so that newspapers could acquire a greater share in the future of communications, whether television, radio or further newspapers. It is a great pity that the Bill does not yet permit local newspapers to have a controlling interest in community radio stations. As I said yesterday, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, as a listening Minister, will have another go at that when the Bill reaches another place.
In Committee and on Report, my hon. and learned Friend has created a piece of legislation that will pave the way for broadcasting in the year 2000 and beyond. I do not see it as a long-term Bill. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), repeating his Committee comments, has been proved right: it is a Bill for the early 1990s. It will cover the critical transition period between now and the year 2000, during which so many technical changes will take place. The digital communications systems that will carry voice telephony, data and entertainment will become inextricably linked. Satellite broadcasting and cable delivery systems will become more and more complementary. The Bill is a recognition of the


fact that there will be a transitional period in the United Kingdom home between the reception of four terrestrial television channels and the use of a whole range of interactive services, just a few of which will embrace television entertainment.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister made a number of major achievements in Committee, and struck a delicate balance between the need to preserve quality and the need to encourage investment in many new channels. He has provided in the Bill for groups of people who have not hitherto been provided for in legislation. We need to remember that. He has provided for the deaf and hard of hearing and has introduced measures affecting religious broadcasting and children's television. Children's television and religious broadcasting have always been there, but arrangements for them have never before been enshrined in law.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, there is much more work to do—both here and in the other place. My hon. and learned Friend has said that he intends to do that work, and I believe that he is right to say that the Bill is a Bill of which, in the end, he will be justly proud.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to some of the nonsense that has been talked not only in the past three months but in the past five minutes. I especially liked one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who said that he did not work for Murdoch. I am pleased to hear it, because we now know that his support for the Bill arises not out of a desire for cash but from sheer ignorance of what its consequences will be. That means that we may eventually be able to convince him that he is wrong.
I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Thanet, North say that the large number of different newspapers in Britain represented a wide spread of opinion and were a means of expression for many separate and individual voices. Five people—a fifth of the number of Labour Members in the Chamber at the moment and a twentieth of the number of people in the Strangers Gallery—own and control 93·9 per cent. of the national daily and Sunday newspapers. Five people tell the vast majority of British households what they should read and how they should think. The hon. Member for Thanet, North then asks why one man, Ruper Murdoch, should not own four television channels. That one man owns 35 per cent. of our national daily and Sunday newspapers and so speaks directly to a third of our people, yet the hon. Gentleman asks why he should not also own four television channels.
At the heart of all thought is language. The word is precious, because he who controls the word controls our future. Communication is infinitely more important than any other matter that may be dealt with in legislation. Without a means of hearing truths and contrary truths, we cannot make progress and if one wants to cripple progress, one must inhibit people's freedom of expression. If five people are allowed to control 94 per cent. of newspapers —the major vehicles for the printed word—the truth will be obscured. That is what we face at present with newspapers, and that is why we are so anxious about the Bill.
What the Bill does—Professor Peacock said in his report that he thought this should happen—is to allow individuals monopoly powers without any regulation and without the basic controls necessary to ensure freedom of expression. The Bill will pass, not just to several people of the same kind but in some cases to the same person, the ability to bring what passes for the truth into British households.
We have already seen what happens when control is passed to certain individuals. We see it every day in The Sun. Do British parents really want their children to grow up to read The Sun? Will that develop their personalities? Will it produce people who will create a civilisation of which we can be proud? Having seen The Sun, we have no excuse for defending what lies behind it.
We are talking not about vague possibilities but about something that we can already see. We have seen the future that those who already own and control our newspapers want to give us, and we do not like it. The Government now propose to give the same person who has polluted the written word the ability to go on to pollute the spoken word. That is what the Bill will do, and no amount of amendment, and no amount of niceness and proclamation of love of the arts on the Minister's part, will change the fact that this is a rotten, disgraceful and cash-orientated Bill.
I have debated with the Minister in the past, and I know that deep down he has a sense of civilisation. I am surprised that he, of all Ministers, should have lent his smooth words to the process of getting the Bill passed. The Minister claims that he has made concessions, and he has. I predicted one of the concessions for which a measure in the Bill already provided.
There were originally two major faults in the Bill itself —quite apart from the pattern of ownership that might flow from it. The first was that it did not protect quality and truth, and the second was that it introduced repressive measures, including censorship. We have made some progress on quality. We are no longer simply giving away contracts to the highest bidder. The Minister has accepted that at least some regard should be paid to the question of quality before the contract goes to a high bidder. That is an improvement, and we thank him for it. We believe that he welcomed it himself.
The principal effect of the Bill will be to flog off broadcasting to the entrepreneur. The Minister claims that the Bill gives freedom and the hon. Member for Thanet, North says that we are afraid of the freedom that it will confer. But the second main aspect of the Bill is its repressive and censorship measures.
Hitherto, broadcasters have been subject to two restraints. The first has been the board of governors of the BBC or, in the case of commercial broadcasting, the IBA. The second has been a code to follow. Public and commercial television and radio have each had one authority and one code. The Government are now introducing another authority and another code. The Minister has doubled the extent of the restraints on and repression of freedom of the broadcaster to speak the truth. In addition, the Minister now proposes to involve the criminal law. I know that many hon. Members will say that the invoking of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is a good thing. I would ask them to be careful about that. Saying to broadcasters, "If you get it wrong, you will face a criminal


charge," is a much more serious matter than asking them to obey a code and saying, "We will rap you if you do not do it."
We now have two authorities, two codes and the criminal law. That means that we have six times as much restraint as we had in the past, because the criminal law applies differently north and south of the border. Someone broadcasting freely in Scotland may find himself charged in England, and vice versa. We have thus multiplied by a factor of six the restraints on broadcasters. Ultimately, the Minister has the power and the Minister's appetite for intervention has been whetted by the attacks on Kate Adie led by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the invasion of the Scottish BBC and the seizure of the Zircon tapes, and similar further attempts to inhibit broadcasters' freedom.
In place of the freedom that the Government boast they will create, we shall create an apparatus of repression and censorship of the genuine broadcaster. We shall sell Channels off to the purveyors of cheap near-pornography. That is what will emerge, and I am sorry that the Minister has lent his hand to it.
It is no use Conservative Members saying that we are pursuing a vendetta against Mr. Murdoch. The vendetta that we must maintain is against the Government. They are a Government dedicated to profit makers and profiteers, and they are careless of the future of the civilisation of this country. That is why we shall vote against the Bill and why, when we return to power, the Labour party will introduce a broadcasting Bill that will represent the true civilisation of Britain, based on the needs of the people of Britain. It will give them proper choice of programmes. There is no choice if six channels purvey the same material.
The Bill matters deeply because, at the end of the day, the only safeguard that we have against tyranny, brutality and the power of those who already possess power is the freedom of the word, so that we can expose injuries when we see them, speak freely and involve people in freeing the word. At the beginning of the day, tyranny starts by locking up the freedom of the word. The future freedom of Britain depends on us freeing the word as never before. Television and radio are too precious to leave in the hands of the few and the powerful. That is why we shall change it when we return to power.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My speech will be brief—I am sure that the House will be glad of that.
When the Bill was published, the Christian people of this country were outraged at its proposals. They wondered why the Government had not only left them out completely but put up barricades against them. I am glad that today, on Third Reading, the Minister who guided the Bill through the House took on board the representations made to him. He was gracious in receiving deputations and listening to them. He was gracious in listening to the arguments put to him. Today I say, on behalf of the Christian public, that Christians are pleased with what has happened. They realise that the Minister has accepted what they had in their minds and hearts.
The Minister realised the strength behind the arguments put to him and the need for a guarantee in legislation that there will be room for the propagation of the Christian faith and for children's programmes.
Everyone in the country is indebted to all who took part in all the stages of the Bill. The Minister himself admitted that strong representations had been made to him from hon. Members on both sides of the House and by various bodies. He was glad that he could take them on board. We look forward with confidence to what he will do in another place. We trust that, at the end of the day, the people of this country will have in practice what they seek and that the new Broadcasting Act will guarantee them the things they want by right of choice.
As I said in Committee, after all, we have the power to switch off. We must see that the choice is there. When the choice exists, people can make their choice according to the standards by which they govern their life. I sincerely thank the Minister for what he has done on Christian representation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister began this debate as if it were a prize-giving ceremony. He could be forgiven for feeling a little discontented that some of the prizewinners have not responded with the spirit of generosity that he showed. The last occasion on which I was present as a recipient at a prize-giving ceremony was at my school. The presiding donor was none other than the late Lord Reith, a fellow Glaswegian, who sought to inspire in all of us a commitment, not to the benefits of public service broadcasting, but to the entrepreneurial flair that had led to the establishment of broadcasting as a medium for selling on a mass scale the new technology that was invented in the early 1920s.
Speeches in Glasgow remind me of another, perhaps more famous speech than that of Lord Reith. It was delivered by that considerable Conservative, F. E. Smith, as lord rector of Glasgow university. He shocked the genteel by speaking of the availability of glittering prizes for sharp swords. There has been about the debates on the Bill some sense that there are glittering prizes in the future of broadcasting. While our task has inevitably and properly been focused on the consumers of broadcasting, we should be living in an unreal world if we did not think of the considerable commercial excitement about the possibilities that are opening up with the advent of new technology.
The speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was enjoyable, as his speeches always are. He managed almost to enthuse us with a sense that the great growth of the technology in which he clearly revels will bring in its train the prospect of a greatly enhanced consumer experience, and that great enjoyment will flow from the adoption of new techniques of broadcasting.
Most of our debates in Committee and on Report inevitably focused on ensuring that the proliferation of services does not simply mean the replication of the same, and, indeed, a declining, quality of broadcasting. At this stage, it is right to ask ourselves whether we have succeeded in ensuring that the quality as well as the diversity of broadcasting will be enhanced.
I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are immensely excited by the technical possibilities of which the hon. Member for Thanet, North spoke. We believe that the creation of new stations and Channel 5, the multiplication of local radio stations and the evidence of foreign investment in cable in the past 18 months are wholly


welcome. All those developments bring genuine potential for innovation. However, we cannot just leave it at that. Alas, the Bill does not usher in the age of change in the 1990s with the due regard to the quality requirement that should be at the centre of the debate about broadcasting.
The smack of earlier debates was that they were dominated more by the Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry than the Home Office Ministers who have ushered the Bill through Parliament. I do not hold any individual Minister responsible for that. I agreed with the short speech made on Report yesterday by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He said that the Bill should have been about an auction of quality. If that had been so, we should have seized the opportunity and the methods that we have used in the past of distributing lucrative franchises. None of us has ever forgotten the view of Lord Thomson that they were a licence to print money.
The methods of allocating those franchises in the past have been too opaque. There has not been much innovation or excitement, but a tendency for those who have enjoyed their franchises for a long time to take a conservative approach. I shall not be unduly upset if there is some turnover of ownership as a result of what is happening. However, we have missed an opportunity by not introducing a tendering process that focuses on quality, not cash.
Looking at the Bill as it stands after all our deliberations, I think that the Minister has served Parliament and the country extraordinarily well. He was right to linger as he did on the remarkable way in which the Committee worked. It was a remarkable experience to watch minds being changed by the process of debate. I think particularly of the change of approach that came over the Committee during the consideration of the national radio channels. By the end, it was clear that there was a consensus that internal diversity was less important than pre-franchise-allocation differentiation of the channels. That sort of development was immensely welcome.
When the Bill was first brought to the House, I was among those who called for a pre-legislative Committee to take evidence and try to reach a consensus in that manner. I still think that it would have been a good idea, but in the light of the way in which the Committee has worked, it was clearly much less necessary. Would that other Bills were handled in a comparable way, and the Minister deserves our congratulations for that.
As a former junior Minister, I have, in my day, handled extremely complex legal Bills, and I greatly admire the way that he handled the Bill on his own. It was quite remarkable that he was unassisted by other Ministers and has come up with a large number of amendments that are the fruit of our deliberations. His style has greatly assisted the legislative process and I hope that I shall have the opportunity of serving with him again in Committee.
The Bill as it stands leaves the other place with much to deal with. I fear that the provisions that allow takeovers to occur within a short time of licences being issued may make the tendering process something of a mockery. It will have the potential to disrupt the ITV system just when a period of stability is required, and it may take more money out of programming.
The Government were unwilling to accept the hostility of ITV to multiple bidding and the opposition of a number of hon. Members, including me, to dual ownership. It is clear that dual ownership will put at risk local ownership, investment, local knowledge and local programming. I hope that that matter will be returned to in another place and that one bid, one licence will prove the final outcome.
It is also to be regretted that we do not have a statutory underpinning for the requirement of networking, for it is recognised that that is necessary for the stability of the system and the viability of smaller companies. Quite rightly, much attention has been paid to the strengthening of the quality requirements, particularly the amendments to clause 17(3) which were tabled at a late stage. The auctioning of the franchises marked a victory for the Treasury over broadcasting. As I said, I would prefer a tendering system that allowed a company to be chosen on what it offers in terms of diversity, quality and investment in the region.
Independent Television News is inadequately provided for, and is the result of an unhappy compromise between the market and monopoly. What has been done looks like the punishment of the ITV companies for the success of their investment in ITN. The Bill creates a private commercial monopoly, effectively protected from com-petition and free, as a result of the great national base, to invade other people's markets, and for whom television news could prove to be a means, not an end. An improvement is required on that. On Report, I spelled out the options that remained.
There has already been some heated exchange in the House this afternoon about cross-media ownership. A period of reflection is needed to ensure that the debate is about monopoly, not simply one owner. The principle that cross-ownership is wrong is supported by almost all hon. Members. There is a huge potential for News International to become the keeper of the gateway for all companies using the Astra satellite by providing an encryption service. It is reasonable to anticipate that the rewards will be as great as the current losses.
The principle that cross-ownership is wrong must be protected, but a solution must be reached to enable News International to make a proper return on its risk before it is required to disinvest. I broadly agreed with the view expressed by the Minister last night that the amendment moved on that subject, which would have required a test of 3 million viewers, was not wholly adequate for the purpose. However, the principle that the amendment was seeking to advance seems to be the right one to pursue.
I think that he was hinting, or even stating, that, if the position changed, the Bill allows, by subordinate legislation, a disinvestment requirement to be brought forward. It is no part of my argument that that disinvestment should be punitive or expropriatory, but clearly it would be totally unacceptable for News International to dominate in a way that is peculiar to itself and contrary to all the arguments accepted by the House on the evils of cross-ownership.
The Government have got the legislation on listed sports events wrong. Such events should be available on terrestrial channels, and the Bill will be resented by many people if the result is to take family occasions off the screen and create the same position as can be seen in the Federal Republic of Germany, where German viewers have been


deprived of the opportunity to watch their champions winning Wimbledon because the event had been bought up by a cable company.
In our debates, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has properly focused a good deal of attention—perhaps more than any other member of his party—on censorship. I have considerable sympathy with what he has said. The Bill has erred in establishing yet another external Government-appointed organisation to act, effectively, as a censor of broadcasting. Effective regulation by the Independent Television Commission internally, and by the BBC, is the way that we should have proceeded. I am afraid that the Government have created an unnecessary quango with potentially evil consequences.
The Minister is right to say that the changes in relation to radio brought about by the Bill are immensely important, although they have—he will not deny it—played second fiddle to television during much of the discussion on the Bill. The Minister has done much to ensure the future of commercial radio by agreeing to tighten the quality and pre-designation requirements of the national stations. However, I fear that community radio will suffer adverse consequences because of a lack of public investment and proper provision. That may mean that choice will be extended hardly at all to many parts of the country, and there will be still less choice of listening. As a result, we could see a considerable contraction of programme content.
I regret that the Bill does not provide for cross-subsidy of the transmission costs of local radio. That will deprive large areas of the benefit of local radio and there will be many white areas on the map. The Government have made a remarkable gesture by recognising the case for extending support for the Gaelic language in Scotland. I welcome the principle of that and many of the proposals that have been made for using the £8 million. There is much to be worked out if Gaelic broadcasting is to be effective in practice. I listened with interest to the suggestion yesterday by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that a Scottish equivalent of S4C might be the way to proceed rather than to expect the existing stations to carry Gaelic broadcasting at peak viewing times.

Mr. Buchan: In view of my strictures about the rest of the Bill, I should like to comment on Gaelic broadcasting and on the money that has come forward. I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming that. It is a glimmer on the horizon and provides a little freedom for us all.

Mr. Maclennan: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about that, just as I agree with some of the other things he said about the Bill.
I congratulate the Minister of State on an extraordinarily good job in improving one of the worst Bills with which the House has been confronted. I think that we can now live with the arrangements that have been made. I am not one of the Cassandras to whom the Minister of State referred, who believe that all will be doom and disaster as a result of the Bill. However, it remains to be seen whether our hopes for quality will be realised. The Bill will be strengthened if the other place takes account of what I have said.

Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke about the stamina of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. I agree with him about that. We became used to seeing that stamina in Committee, but the 17 hours that my hon. and learned Friend spent at the Dispatch Box in the past two days were something else. He was there until the early hours of this morning and the quality of his answers and the way in which he dealt with the issues never wavered. Such quality has been at the heart of our debates on the Bill. The Minister of State and I share a love of football and classical music. I am not sure whether his stamina has been gained by watching too much of Chelsea or whether he drew strength from listening to Wagner and other classical composers.
I pay tribute to everyone who worked on the Committee. We had an interesting four months and I certainly enjoyed our sittings. I wish that more of our proceedings could be conducted in such a good-natured and constructive manner. In Committee and on Third Reading we have seen occasional skirmishes between my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), but they were the exception rather than the rule. I should also like to pay a small tribute to two silent members of the Committee. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who is the Minister's PPS., and to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who is a most good-natured and helpful Whip. I said to him at the start of our proceedings that we would end up better friends than when we started.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Sycophantic schmaltz.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman seems disturbed about that. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, it is important for people outside to see that Parliament works in a constructive and good-natured manner. Sometimes the brief interludes that people are fed from Parliament's proceedings give entirely the wrong impression.
My main interest in the Bill relates to the future of Channel 3. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State spoke of the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Perhaps I may be allowed one further reference, which goes to the heart of the issues. The report of that Select Committee emphasised that
at the heart of the matter is the quality and range of services provided, and their financing, not the means of their delivery".
The report also said that
whatever criticisms are made legitimately at home, abroad British Television is seen to be amongst the best, if not to be the best in the world.
All members of the Committee had that ideal very much at the back of their minds. We wanted to maintain those standards in a future in which there would be much more competition, especially for Channel 3. Channel 4 has its remit strengthened even more by the Bill and its financial arrangements are more secure. That is also the case for the BBC, which for the foreseeable future will have the licence fee—another issue that Parliament will have to consider. Channel 3 has none of those things.
It is important to strike a proper balance in terms of underpinning the elements of the public service


broadcasting commitment that Channel 3 has had in the past. That should be maintained, while recognising that it would be wrong to require too much from Channel 3 which has to compete for its revenue in the market place. We cannot provide the guarantee of funding that a more deep-seated or detailed remit for public service broadcast-ing would require.
Much of our discussion in Committee centred on the practical measures that we needed to put in place to ensure that the bidding process was sensible and an improvement on previous arrangements. In the past two days there has been a justified welcome for the key amendment to clause 17(3)—the exceptional circumstances clause—which the House debated yesterday. It is important that the other place does not overlook the clarification of the bidding process when it considers the Bill. Even in this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves again that unless a bidder's programme proposals, his financial arrangements and the level of his bid dovetail together, the ITC will be perfectly justified in rejecting that bid.
Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Opposition have said that the proposals place too much emphasis on money and not enough on quality. The exceptional circumstances clause is now in place, although, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows, I want him to consider whether the wording is absolutely right. However, that clause in itself is a clear incentive to the ITV Channel 3 bidders to bid up quality. There is a quality hurdle in the mechanism, but there is no money hurdle or threshold because the Bill does not say that a bid must be for a minimum amount. It specifies a range of obligations which underpin quality. Above all, they underpin the regionality of the Channel 3 structure.
My hon. and learned Friend knows that I see as very important the need to ensure that the Channel 3 regions remain a vital and important part of the broadcasting scene in Britain. That is important for those of us with constituencies a long way from London. Many of them, such as Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees Television, Granada and the Scottish regional stations, have achieved great results, not only within the United Kingdom but throughout the world and have justifiably won many prizes for their programmes. They have brought an important breadth to the cultural life of the regions through their support for the arts and for drama. That is why we must protect the regionality of Channel 3, and the Bill does that.
Not only did my hon. and learned Friend the Minister accept my key amendment on regionality in Committee, but having thought about the matter further he introduced another amendment on Report, which was accepted, to make it clear that when considering the facilities, studios and staff that a Channel 3 bidder will need in the regions, the ITC can request details of those arrangements and take them into account in assessing whether the bid is satisfactory.
Some concerns about the Bill remain, and they were enumerated during our discussions on Report. I am sure that the other place will take account of them. However, the issue of networking still remains. My hon. and learned Friend is right to allow the industry a little longer to reach some agreement. Nevertheless, he recognises that the commitments given by bidders cannot be a shot in the dark

—there must be a clear understanding of the financial implications of the network when they formulate their bids and put together their financial proposals.
I am still concerned about takeovers and I am firm in my belief in the need for a moratorium. My hon. and learned Friend has agreed to reconsider that. I hope that he will not take too much account of the fact that, regrettably, when the matter was put to a Division in the House, it was heavily defeated. I hope that he will fully appreciate the importance of that issue.
All those who served on the Committee will recognise the quality of the briefings from both the IBA and the ITVA. When the Bill is enacted, when all its measures are in place, when we see the expansion of opportunity in television and radio which will result from the Bill, it will undoubtedly be thought of as "Mellor's Bill". However, we will also remember that nice, sensible Mr. George Russell, whom we discussed on many occasions. He will have the blueprint that he wanted for the future of Channel 3 in the allocation process. It will then be for ITV to make the best of it. I have no doubt that, as it has done in the past, it will do so in the future.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: In taking part in a Third Reading debate not having served on the Committee, I feel as though I might be intruding in a private meeting. After hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I wonder whether I have intruded into a love-in. It is obvious that a deep affection has developed between many of those who served on the Committee. However, although I may suffer from the disadvantage of not having served on the Committee, that may enable me to have a slightly clearer view of the process which has led to the Bill and the current position as it passes through its final stages in this place.
The Bill began with a Prime Minister with a congenital tendency to meddle, especially in areas that she does not understand. She has a rather unpleasant dislike of members of my union, the ACTT, and of journalists in general, although with the odd exception. She decided that television and radio broadcasting was another area of our national life in which she should meddle. She decided that a Bill was the right way to do that, despite the fact that, as many hon. Members have said, British broadcasting is outstanding, as are British television programmes. Some hon. Members may have seen a programme which was shown after our debate on Tuesday night. It was an hour-long documentary on ITV about the second world war from the D-day landings to VE day and told the story of the relationship between Eisenhower and Montgomery. It was outstandingly well produced with tremendous library footage. There was nothing clever—no trickery was involved—just a good story, well told. I wonder how many such productions will be possible on the fancy channels of the future.
After the Prime Minister had decided to meddle, the next stage was for the former Home Secretary, who has now moved on, to undertake the job of giving a philosophical veneer to what was happening. He coined the immortal phrase that the new broadcasting system would be like browsing in a good bookshop. That was how he described the multitude of cable and satellite channels that are to come. It was then all-change at the Home Office, and the Bill was delivered to the Minister of State.
The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be the Government's odd job man, to be shunted from one Department to another—I believe that it is called a sweeper in the trade. He has been quite amiable and has made one or two concessions——

Mr. John Greenway: Only one or two?

Mr. Grocott: I do not question the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made concessions, but I have a feeling that he has been aware all along that he has been dealt a duff hand and he has had to make the best of it.
The Bill rests on two false premises. The first is the fallacy of technology. It is believed that, somehow, technology must drive the change in broadcasting. I do not want to patronise the Minister. Those who hit television tangentially—and the Minister hits plenty of television studios—tend to become mesmerised by the technology. I regret to say that some people have made a living from it, including the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who seems perpetually mesmerised even though he knows and understands what it is all about. Technology in television is the servant, not the master. It is rather like someone interested in newspapers being obsessed by the production process rather than the quality of the news coverage. What matters in television is the quality of the programmes, not whether the screen can be spun around or the programmes delivered by satellite or cable, bounced off the sun, the moon or whatever. A simple story well told, such as the documentary to which I referred, needs no fancy technology or delivery system—it needs good quality programming. As has been said repeatedly and effectively, the new channels by no means guarantee better delivery and better quality programmes.
The second fallacy, which is the Bill's fundamental and abiding weakness, is that the free market will somehow deliver. The Minister has had to concede time and again that the free market does not deliver. He had to do that through the increased regulations relating to religious and educational programmes on Channel 3. They will not be delivered by the free market any more than regional televison could have been delivered by the free market. They can be delivered only by regulation.
The Minister has not made satisfactory concessions but at least he has admitted that problems may lie ahead in relation to the whole business of takeovers, which proves that the free market philosophy is fatally flawed. The Government's idea of a free market in this respect seems to be that anyone with the cash can take over a company.
The free market fatally fails to deliver in all areas. It will fail to deliver in networking. We can achieve a proper networking system only by regulation and control. In other words, the whole notion of the Bill is based on a fallacy, as are the Government's policies in other areas. It is no different in principle from the view that if cash is allowed to reign supreme in the National Health Service, everybody will get a good service. In fact, it simply means that the rich get the best doctors and hospitals. The same is true in education—if it is left to the free market, the rich will get smaller class sizes. Only by a form of regulation that is democratically accountable can we have a good service that is available to us all.
There is no more perfect a characterisation of the failure of the free market than the argument about the restricted availability of sporting programmes—the famous list to which reference is constantly made.
Conservative Members who believe in the operation of a free market in broadcasting are saying that if, for the 2 per cent. of viewers with access to satellite television, the sponsors of Sky wish to buy Wimbledon, the cup final or any of the listed events and have the money to demand exclusive access to those events, they can enjoy those programmes, and for the 98 per cent. of the rest of us who do not have that access it is just tough luck. That is the logic of the free market. If Conservative Members do not believe that, they do not believe in the operation of the free market. Opposition Members believe that sporting and other events of that kind are part of our culture and heritage. The beauty of the British broadcasting system is that no wealthy group can decide to have such events for their exclusive use and enjoyment. We rest our case on the belief that broadcasting is at its best when it is available to everyone, when it has the money to make quality programmes and when it is able to build on the best of what has existed before.
The Bill is based on a fallacy and was conceived in spite. It has been developed on the basis of a phoney philosophy which does not stand up to examination. We want a properly regulated means of controlling this wonderful technology, with the incredible access that it gives to millions of our fellow citizens, so that it may expand choice and enrich the community. For that reason, we shall vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) shows that Opposition Members do not understand what the Bill is about, mainly because they have not taken a step backwards to appreciate what is happening in broadcast-ing. The Bill will not change broadcasting and television. They are changing anyway.
The hon. Gentleman proves that he has no confidence in the ability of anyone to do anything that is not laid down and tightly drawn in legislation, preferably drafted by the Labour party. History shows that he is wrong. Opposition philosophy in this area was wrong in the past, and it will prove to be wrong on this occasion.
When the BBC began, it was technically difficult to put any television programmes on the air. The engineers had a tight grip on the BBC. When ITV started, the big fear expressed by Labour Members in debates similar to this was that it would not be possible for independent people to come in and produce quality programmes, and that even the necessary engineering resources would not be available to them to screen such programmes.
The technology has changed so dramatically that none of the equipment that is now used—cameras, editing and graphics equipment and so on—is more technical than the average hi-fi system. So, without enormous technical back-up and having to cope with the huge problems that existed in the past, it is possible to screen good-quality television programmes, using people whose talents are not in technical areas but in wider artistic, current affairs and news backgrounds. Modern technology allows such people to bring their talents to television and radio. Because those new opportunities exist, and because a massive number of new radio and some new television stations will be established, the Bill will enable all those talents to be brought to the fore.
It is not for us to say what those talents must be. We should not lay down in legislation what we mean by quality programmes or say how the inventiveness that exists today should be brought to the fore. That is the way in which the Labour party views this issue, and its philosophy does not work. We must simply lay down a framework that will enable new developments to work, and the Bill will achieve that process.
Many more people will seek to establish television and radio stations. Some will fail. Some will introduce ideas that have not occurred to any of those who have taken part in these debates. I welcome the fact that people from totally different backgrounds will have a part to play.
At the same time, the Bill will help to protect our remarkably good television system. BBC 1 and 2 will still be the cornerstone of British television broadcasting. It is remarkable how the BBC, when faced with a challenge, as it is today, responds by providing an improved service.
Those who now work for the BBC and who worked there during the 14 years when I worked for the BBC agree that it improved greatly with the advent of ITV, and improved further when Channel 4 came into being. I have absolute confidence that the BBC will improve yet again as it faces the latest challenge.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is almost entirely wrong in recalling what happened with the advent of independent broadcasting. I was involved in it in the 1950s. We were anxious to prevent it becoming cash-dominated. All sides of the argument eventually reached agreement about that, as the various reports produced at the time, including Pilkington, show.
That happened because it was subject to the type of regulation that enabled good programmes to be made and diversity of opinion to be expressed. It was through regulation that commercial independent television was able to help the television process. It increased the number of public service channels and opened up freedom of expression. But the Bill will prevent new ideas from developing unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the licensees that money can be made from them.

Mr. Hughes: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made an interesting and detailed speech. However, he made the same speech at almost every sitting and it became slightly less interesting as time went on.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Cheap.

Mr. Hughes: It may be cheap, but it is true. The hon. Gentleman would seize every opportunity to say that he was the only member of the Committee who understood what was going on. I am not sure that everyone agreed.
We will still have BBC and Channel 4—the Government's creation. There was no expansion of broadcasting under a Labour Government. If we had wanted to cheapen broadcasting and to change what would be available for minority groups, the Bill gave us the chance to do so. But it was never our intention to change the format of Channel 4, and it has not been changed. We will also have Channel 5. That will not be available to everyone, but it will be the first national television channel based outside London. Surely everyone would welcome

that new focus for a national channel. That is a remarkable feature, for which the Bill and the Minister will be remembered.
We will also have new radio stations, bringing diversity and catering for many different tastes. However, I have one worry about the new radio stations. Too much power may have been given to those people whose powers in allocating the Channel 3 franchises have been diminished —the chattering classes and their representatives who did so badly in the past when it came to allocating Channel 3 franchises; the people who gave us the original London Weekend Television, putting together a pack of nonsense, and the people who gave us Harlech television.
Their piece de resistance was TV-am. Everyone who worked in television and television news knew that they could not put a television news organisation on the air with the promises that were being made, and that proved to be true. The only people who believed it were those at the IBA. But those people are still around and they will probably have too much power when it comes to allocating radio franchises.
The IBA has been responsible for a sad feature of the incremental licences that have been given. For example, Sunrise Radio, which operates in west London and in part of my constituency, is an Asian radio station, but at peak time, in the mornings, it does not have Asian programmes. It has a white disc jockey playing music from the top 40 on the basis that Asian children like that sort of music as much as anyone else.
But they can listen to Capital Radio or Radio 1. Sunrise Radio was supposed to offer something different and if it does not do that at peak times, it is not offering something different. It was the IBA which persuaded it to adopt that policy, on the basis that it would be more profitable. That is a shame and, before the Bill becomes an Act, we must ensure that that does not happen to the hundreds of new radio stations.
Every time that broadcasting has expanded in Britain, it has been trailed as a disaster. We need only read the speeches from Labour Members on every occasion to know that. However, that has not proved to be the case in the past and I do not believe that it will be this time. On the details of the legislation, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister listened to those who felt strongly about something and, where the lobbying was logical and sensible, he changed the Bill accordingly. But there has been no change to the central thrust of the Bill and its important framework for ensuring that we take advantage of the expected expansion. It is because of that twin-track approach that we shall have a successful expansion of broadcasting; and most of the credit for that must go to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I was not a member of the Committee, so I take this opportunity to congratulate those who were on their good work in improving the Bill. I include in those congratulations the Minister, who showed flexibility in considering the various points put to him and ingenuity in bringing about the changes in the amended Bill. I mention not being a member of the Committee not as a criticism, as may have


been thought when I spoke on Report, but in case I mention matters which I am sure were thoroughly discussed in Committee.
I hope that the Minister will not think me churlish if I criticise certain aspects of the Bill. For example, I am disappointed that, even with the changes, the highest bidder will be awarded the contract. That is not a good thing. It would be much better if quality alone were to prevail.
The aspect of the Bill which has given most concern to my constituents is that relating to religious broadcasting. I have received an enormous number of letters and petitions from sincere Christians who felt insulted by the implication in the Bill that, somehow or other, all Christians are so untrustworthy that they could not own a television station or run a programme. Thank goodness matters were improved on Report. I hope that they will be further improved in another place, but some honest and sincere people still have great reservations. I look forward to seeing even more improvements.
It is sad that all citizens in a democracy cannot be treated equally, regardless of class, creed or race. I welcome the strengthening of the regional requirements, which should ensure that we have a credible regional application, and the support shown on Report for networking—a system which is recognised as essential to enable regional companies such as Ulster Television to give viewers a full range and variety of local, national and international programmes.
I was encouraged by the Minister's appreciation of the difficulties faced by Ulster Television and his recognition of the care which will be needed in awarding the franchise to Northern Ireland. Ulster Television is one of the smallest independent television companies. Its advertising income is only 1·5 per cent. of ITV's total. Broadcasting in a divided society such as Northern Ireland requires impartiality, accuracy and sensitivity—an exceptional responsibility.
A former Home Secretary said:
In Northern Ireland there is much violence and sadness. But there is, too, a rich and varied life and a caring community in which neighbour helps neighbour. It is this that Ulster Television showed, and, by showing, encouraged its growth. This showed that not only does Ulster Television serve Northern Ireland, but is also a vital part of it.
That must be guarded when it comes to the Northern Ireland franchise. I hope that that will be remembered when the licence is awarded.

Mr. Simon Coombs: There are so many stages in a Bill's process through the House that—if one is to take part in all of them—then towards the end of that process it seems that there is little left to say. That has never prevented the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) from speaking, however, and it will not stop me tonight.
Let me say to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—who will have to read it in Hansard—that in a free market there must be sellers as well as buyers. He spoke about listed events as if there were only buyers among television companies, but there are also the sellers of the rights to those listed events. If they decide that it is in their interests to have large audiences for the televising of those events, they will not sell to those who claim exclusivity in the form of satellite coverage.
I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the way that he has guided the Bill's progress. He has often been helpful to me and my colleagues, not only in Committee but on many other occasions when it was necessary for us to call him out to discuss matters. Before we began work on the Bill, he had the reputation of being a hard man to move—other than, on occasion, to anger. I can think of one occasion in Committee when his patience was tested by the impish hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but he resisted firmly. As other hon. Members have said, the Committee stage of the Bill was remarkably good-humoured and good-natured.
I approach the Bill with a specific interest in the British cable industry. It is not a commercial interest; my constituency contains the oldest of the existing cable companies—Swindon Cable. Considerable progress has been made in resolving the problems of the cable industry in this country, and I am delighted that we have made the right moves to ensure that the present surge of interest and investment is sustained. After a long period when cable could have been said to be in the doldrums in this country, I believe that it is now on the verge of an explosion of activity. Clearly it was right for us to try to ensure that nothing was done to put that at risk.
With the vast increase in the number of programmes available on cable, we will see a rapid increase in the number of operating cable stations and a steady increase in the number of people who subscribe to cable. We must therefore avoid any temptation to make it easier to cable. small pockets of densely populated areas, and thus exclude other less densely populated areas from the benefits of cable. I say "benefits" because we want to help to avoid a rash of satellite dishes across the country. They are already to be seen in many parts of London and elsewhere in the south of England, and they will spread north unless we ensure that the television of the future can be obtained through underground cable rather than satellite dishes. For that reason if no other, members of the Committee were anxious to see that the cable industry had a fair wind for the future.
On the subject of religious broadcasting, I pay tribute to a number of people whom I will not detain the House by naming individually. Between them, they have run an effective campaign to ensure a victory for common sense. In a Christian country, we should allow Christians to receive programmes that reinforce their faith; I am thinking in particular of Vision Broadcasting from Swindon, which brings much pleasure to my constituents and to many others around the country who can now receive its programmes through cable. I am grateful to the Minister for making it possible for the company to continue to make high-quality programmes for Christians in this country.
Another classic exercise in democracy was the campaign to ensure the continuation of teletext on Channel 3 and Channel 4. To begin with, we were told by the Government that we could be satisfied with a teletext service on BBC 1 and BBC 2, and that Ceefax would be sufficient. I have nothing against Ceefax—it is a good service and I use it extensively—but Oracle is better. I hope that Ceefax will respond to such remarks and endeavour to be as good: I am sure that in the future it will be.
What was clearly undesirable was that the element of choice should be taken away. Therefore, it was necessary to mount a campaign—both in Committee and elsewhere


—to ensure that Oracle, or something like it, was preserved on Channel 3 and Channel 4. There was a great deal of lobbying, both of Committee members and of other hon. Members. A public-relations exercise among the viewers—not surprisingly—ensured that an enormous majority of Oracle users voted in favour of their right to continue to use Oracle. There was a wise reaction to that by my hon. and learned Friend. Oracle is too good a service to be lost. If it is to be lost, now that the Bill has been amended, it will be because in the event of a competitive tender it must give way to an even better-quality bid for the same essential service. We must accept the possibility that that will occur.
The issue of quality was at the heart of many of our Committee debates, and many of our debates in the Chamber over the past 72 hours. The Bill has been improved in that respect. Its wording is better than it was when we started, but there is still the essential problem of who is to judge what quality is. Many words have been spoken and written by hon. Members and others about that thorny issue, but I am not sure that anyone knows the true answer to the question, "What is quality?". Politicians must avoid the assumption that their tastes are right for the public at large. Apart from anything else, as there are 650 hon. Members there is the potential for 650 different answers. Nevertheless, we must show humility in what we impose on the public, and I defend the right of my fellow citizens to watch soap operas and game shows if they wish. I hope and believe that a 20, 30 or 40-channel capacity will also make possible the continual cricket by day and classical music by night to which I look forward in the new world of television in the 1990s.
The key to success in this venture in commercial television is, inevitably, money. Will it come from advertising, or from subscription, in sufficient quantities to support the technology explosion that we inevitably face? I believe that money from advertising will follow quality programmes for the ABC 1 audiences with buying power, but it will also follow popular programmes for mass audiences. Television in the 1990s will be broadly similar to the television that we have had for the past 10 years. There will not be the great differences that Opposition Members fear and for which—perhaps—some Conservative Members hope. The great change is that there will be vastly more choice: that I welcome. For that reason, the Bill should now make progress and be subjected to further detailed scrutiny in another place.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I apologise to you and to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing the opening of the debate? I was out busily trying to save badgers. I look forward to reading the Minister's speech in the next edition of "News from Stamford Bridge".
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made a good point about satellite dishes. I know that he understands more than most the technology and the desirability of cable. I tend to support him. We tried in Committee to ensure greater control of satellite dishes, but because they are subject to planning control under the town and country planning legislation, we could not deal

with the matter in the way that it should have been dealt with. The House will have to address it, because satellite dishes are an intrusion.
Surely technology could produce something less obtrusive. Sky Television and others are considering the matter. Many places, such as council estates and conservation areas, are ruined by satellite dishes. I do not know whether Sutton borough council has got a judgment yet on the case that it is taking about the siting of satellite dishes, but we shall read the judgment with great interest. Something needs to be done. Unfortunately, we could not do anything through the Bill. If we are to have a proliferation of channels, it must be done through cable and not through satellite dishes.
Since I was elected in 1983, I have been a member of Committees on many Bills—I think, well over 20. It is normal for major Bills to be heavily amended in Committee. One reason is that they were half-baked to start with because so often it has been a case of legislation on the hoof and the Government themselves were forced to amend their own badly drafted legislation. I do not think that I have taken part in the Committee stage of a Bill which has been so heavily amended as the Broadcasting Bill on the basis of argument and representation in Committee.
There are two reasons for that. First, the original Bill was unpalatable and unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to those in the industry and around it. That lesson was well learned by Ministers and certainly by hon. Members in Committee. We received from various organisations excellent briefings that we were able to put to effective use. I recall that many a speech was ridden home on the IBA briefings and the support that we got from the BBC and various advisers, including unions like BETA——

Mr. Bob Cryer: And ACTT.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his unnecessary prompting.
There was a second reason for the amendments: we had leading the Bill a Minister who was far more open-minded than is normally healthy for Tory politicians in these days of sudden death by handbagging. We are grateful to him for what he was able to do. He had, as they say in the parlance, a good Bill. All the paeans of praise that have been descending upon him must worry him slightly, because the only way for him to go now is down. I would not wish that on him. Someone else has received the black spot from Blind Pugh in being asked to administer the poll tax; the Minister has escaped that fate, which is clearly worse than death.
The Minister has emerged as the acceptable face of Tory extremism. Because of that, the Bill is less bad than it was, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, it is still unacceptable. The provision that there shall be no moratorium after a franchise has been granted must be changed in another place. If the will of the House means anything, there should be a moratorium. The only disagreement was on how long it should be and on when it should be triggered. I hope that a moratorium will be delivered in another place.
The decision on listed events was appalling. The universality element has disappeared from what we all recognise as important events. I accept that most of them


are sporting events. My partner would not be upset if the world cup finals were only on a channel which had an audience of 200 to 300—in fact, she would be delighted —but it would be a national calamity for the great majority in the House and elsewhere. Some television satellite companies which are losing a great deal of money —£2 million a week in the case of Sky—will not hesitate to put in megabids in order to try to sell more subscriptions. That is perhaps the only way that they can succeed. That is a great mistake, and another error that should be rectified in another place.
Despite all the improvements, the Bill is still unacceptable. It is still driven far more by the cash nexus than by the philosophy of the highest quality for the greatest number. All through the proceedings, the Labour party has defended proven quality and the high standards of public service broadcasting in Britain. In that sense we make no excuse for being seen as conservative, with a small "c". We know that what we have got is good, and we are not sure that what is on offer is better; indeed, it may risk what is good. That being so, we have taken a position of defence of standards that are well proven. Everything is capable of being improved. To risk everything might appeal to the political gambler, but we believe that it is no way to treat broadcasting.
Broadcasting is vital to the maintenance of democracy. I do not think that one overstates the case by putting it in those terms. Television influences all our lives. That is why politicians are so interested in television and why we spend so much time trying to get on television. That was why the great majority of us welcomed the television cameras into the House. We know that, through television, we can let people know what we are doing in their name, for good or ill.
That is why television is so important. It shapes our lives, it entertains and it educates. For all those reasons, it is far too important to be left to unregulated market forces. We must not allow mega-millionaire megaloma-niacs to strut round acquiring television channels in the same way as they buy up newspapers. I do not single out Rupert Murdoch, because there are others like him in the industry. He is no better and no worse than many others. The concentration of power in the media should worry us all. If we allow the media to be concentrated in the hands of the malevolent, we will be like putty in their hands, and they will try to shape us and the industry.
Yesterday, the Labour party was accused of operating a vendetta against Sky Television. That is not true. Certainly we have a lot to complain about with regard to other parts of Mr. Murdoch's evil press empire. If Tory Members were subjected to the vile calumnies to which we are subjected through neo-Nazi comics like The Sun, they might feel as annoyed as we are at times, and with considerable justification. That is not a vendetta against satellite television or Sky Television in particular. If there is a vendetta in the House, it is being waged by the Government against the British Broadcasting Corporation, and is supported by some of the nastier right-wing elements on the Tory Benches.
The Government realise the power of broadcasting. They realise that impartiality and objectivity will never serve the interests of the Tory party. Whatever St. Mellor may believe—I give him the benefit of the doubt on this —I think that it is the objective of many of his hon. Friends to provide people with 57 varieties of the same sort of rubbish—chewing gum for the eyes—because that is the

way to divide and rule; he who controls the channels of communication exercises real political power. There is a grave risk that that will be the case.
The Bill still leaves too many facets the subject of hopes and prayers. The Minister's intentions are not necessarily shared by the kind of people who will try to move in for the kill when stations are up for grabs. The Government are wrong to adopt a high-risk strategy towards the future of broadcasting. Public sector broadcasting is one of the few things of quality remaining in this country, and one of the few for which we are admired around the world. Public sector broadcasting is one of the few things that we still do well—yet here we are, throwing it all up in the air and seeing how the pieces land. That is not something that I or anyone else who is involved in, or who cares for, broadcasting wants to see.
I can only console myself with the knowledge that it will be a Labour Government who will be around to see how the Act works out in practice and to repair the damage that it may do.

Sir Giles Shaw: I shall try to bring the debate a little nearer to the ground, following the outbursts of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for not being present for the whole of the debate. I was in the Chamber when it began, and I am delighted and somewhat proud to be involved in its closing minutes.
The scheme that the Committee and the House has considered over many hours aims at providing a framework for broadasting that will last through the present decade and into the year 2000 and beyond. It is not often given to this House to do that. No wonder the Bill is large and comprehensive, and no wonder it has been amended in a massively constructive way, and has occupied so much time. The Bill is pretty unusual in its content, scope and timing. It originates from a number of initiatives, some generated internally within the Home Office, and others externally by public debate and investigated by committees set up for that purpose. The most recent of them was the Peacock committee, but it was by no means the only source of potential change.
It behoves us to remember that one of the questions posed to the Peacock committee, but whose answer to it has not been adopted, concerned the future financing of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly paid substan-tial tribute. That significant question remains to be answered by the corporation, bound as it is by the licence fee, itself determined by retail price increments and by the fact that, as the operator of two major television channels, it will have to compete for audiences against an increasing range of programming from ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and so on.
I am aware that, if Labour were in government, it would take the corporation within the Exchequer and provide for it from the national grant. That may say a great deal for the ease with which such a thing can be done, but not much for maintaining the impartiality of the BBC. I shall leave that on one side. I raise the issue merely because it is one that still has to be addressed in the longer term.
The Bill creates a large number of opportunities in respect of audience choice, with which we all agree: the


development of sufficient talent to fill the time available on radio, terrestrial and satellite television; and attracting sufficient funds to make it all work.
As to choice, although I can understand the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) curling up in agony in his place as he contemplates viewing choice going beyond the bounds of what he considers to be artistically or culturally acceptable, the fact remains that the generality of choice has lifted the coinage of human understanding in a way that is beyond debate. It has broadened educational and cultural opportunity, and has increased the knowledge that British society has of itself and of other societies. No right hon. or hon. Member could deny that. ITV has extended the frontiers of knowledge as the BBC alone did for generations, and for that we are profoundly thankful.
It is true that, in terms of increasing one's knowledge of what is going on in the world, satellite television, although in its infancy, has the capacity to transmit information from all around the world in a much more diverse way than has ever before been possible.
As to talent, I share much of the anxiety that has been expressed. One knows that talent can be purchased by the lowest common multiple of those who want to expose the largest possible audience to that talent, because talent does not come cheap. Good talent is in demand by various buyers of television programming—as it is by buyers of radio or printed material. Talent is not produced in great quantities. It comes almost by definition by a process of refinement that allows the most talented people to enjoy world stage demand at world stage fees. The question of whether sufficient talent can be developed is a major one in the development of Channel 3 and Channel 5.
Investment really gives the clue, because it will be the determining factor. There is plenty of opportunity for investment, but in the case of cable television, for example, the impetus has all come from Canada and the United States. It is equally notable that investment to date in British satellite television has come largely from Australia. The United Kingdom has not yet shown itself to be bursting with enthusiasm at the prospect of investing in the new television station. I hope that it will change its mind, and I trust that the result will be healthy, competitive, creatively viable and profitable television—and the same goes for cable and satellite broadcasting.

Mr. Alistair Darling: In view of the time constraints, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments.
Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister was most helpful, and we appreciate that. There is no doubt that the Bill is infinitely better now than when it started out. Some would say that it would be difficult for it to be otherwise. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to the arguments and for making improvements to the Bill— sometimes at his own suggestion, sometimes at the suggestion of others. I shall say nothing further by way of a eulogy to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because enough has been said—and other points that divide us deserve consideration.
Major flaws remain in the Bill. We accept that broadcasting is set to expand over the next few years. As

the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said, everything is changing. But changing technology itself does not guarantee choice. It increases the potential for choice, which can only be to the good—but additional channels do not necessarily mean that there will be more choice. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) pointed out, that will depend on the quality of the programming.
The Bill should provide a framework that allows for innovation and expansion, while at the same time insisting on quality, to ensure real choice for viewers and listeners. Instead, the Bill has essentially been driven by a desire to deregulate. That has been tempered, but it was the driving force behind the legislation. The cash bid for the right to broadcast is still at the centre of the Bill, and that is its major failing.
We are told that we should not worry about a fall in the quality of Channel 3, because there will remain the cornerstones of the BBC and Channel 4. Those cornerstones will cease to exist if they no longer have to compete in quality terms against Channel 3. ITV taught the BBC and Channel 4 a thing or two about drama output. If quality is cut because of pressures to win a franchise, the incentive for the BBC and for Channel 4, and for Channel 5 if we ever see it, to achieve excellence will diminish. It is wrong to argue that Channel 3's quality can decrease because the BBC and others will remain.
I have yet to understand why it is right to run an open competition involving a cash bid to win the franchise initially, but then apply a different regime thereafter—so that, once a successful applicant is in the saddle, he is there for life. As I said in Committee, it is the most glamorous form of closed shop that has ever been dreamed up.
Serious matters remain unresolved and they deserve further attention in another place. Bidding has been tempered, but the quality threshold in clause 16, although it has been increased, is still subservient to the requirement that the highest bidder will win the day.
I know that the Minister has tabled amendments which state that, if the quality of the lower bidder is exceptional or of substantially higher quality, the Independent Television Commission can choose that bidder. But we must note the superlatives. The quality of the lower bidder does not have to be slightly better, probably better or almost certainly better—it has to be exceptional, or substantially higher in quality.
Almost certainly that means that the highest cash bid will win the day. If it does not, we can look forward to battles in the courts to decide who gets the right to broadcast. That fatal flaw at the heart of the Bill is one reason that we cannot support it tonight. Price and quality should be considered side by side. The Minister said that in Committee, and that is what many people inside and outside the Committee believe. Notwithstanding the amendment and the Minister's sentiments, the Bill means that the highest bidder will win unless the lower bidder is exceptionally better. That is difficult to assess or to establish.
There are other problems. There have been safeguards and additions to the requirements for strong regional television, but they will be set aside if there is a host of takeover bids after the auctions. I hope that, when the Bill is considered in another place, note will be taken, as my hon. Frieod the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, of the strong feeling in the House—at least among those hon. Members who have expressed an


opinion—that there should be a moratorium on takeovers. We think that it should be for three years, but two years would be better than nothing.
Otherwise, once the franchises are initially allocated, there will be a flurry of takeovers by those who seek to broadcast without having to cross the quality threshold, such as it is. That cannot be good for regional broadcasting or for the quality of broadcasting in general.
The lack of a networking agreement gives us serious anxiety, and not just because those bidding need to know what they will get, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, but because it is important if the smaller television companies are to be safeguarded. If there is no networking agreement, there is no reason why the larger companies cannot exploit their dominant position as they did in the earlier years of the ITV network.
By the time the Bill returns to the House, if it includes no networking agreement, I hope that the Government will further amend the Bill, if necessary giving the ITC powers to insist that such an agreement exists.
Another flaw is the lack of cross-media ownership. If the Government can accept controls on cross-media ownership in every aspect of the Bill except for Sky Television, surely the case is made. I cannot understand why Sky should be the only organisation exempted in practice from cross-media ownership. To listen to Conservative Members, one would think that we were totally against cross-media ownership. If the Government accept the need for it in most cases, they should accept it completely.
I do not want to see a battery of controls in broadcasting. The framework should allow people to get on with it, but unless there are guidelines within the framework to influence the development of broadcasting during the next 10 to 20 years, we run the risk of not getting greater choice. We will have more channels, but we will simply have more of the same.
That is clearly illustrated by the likely pattern of local radio development. The same standards are not set for radio as for television. It is all very well to have hundreds of radio channels,but if they all broadcast the same pop music, there is no choice. I should have liked greater insistence on the creation of a variety of channels, which would appeal to a broad range of people. I welcome the Minister's move on national radio channels, because at least one would be different.
A similar problem arises with satellite television. I cannot see the gain to society if more new technology means that fewer people can watch sporting events. What is the point of new technology and new satellites if it means that fewer people can enjoy the football or Wimbledon finals? I do not agree that sporting organisations will not sell out to the highest bidder. Everything we have heard suggests that they will.
I hope that cable television will develop. Two nights ago, we discussed developments which will help cable television companies. I want to help them and the people who are supposed to watch cable television. I was about to say that the sooner those companies get off the ground the better, but perhaps that is inappropriate. The sooner that cable television starts to produce the goods, the sooner they will build up the credibility that they do not have at present. I conclude where I started. Technology is changing. Programme makers have a lot to be proud of, as British broadcasting is respected throughout the world, but if we are to ensure that it remains in that happy

position, we must have a guarantee of quality. If the only choice is to switch off the television or radio there is no choice.
As long as cash overrides quality, I fear that there is a risk that the quality of Channel 3 television and radio will be diminished, not increased, as a result of the Bill. We have an opportunity; all is not yet lost. The Government have made some changes and we welcome them, but the central flaw in the Bill is that cash is the driving force arid that the market knows best. The market does not always know best. The Government have a duty to provide a framework and at present that is lacking in the Bill.
If Britain is to remain at the forefront of broadcasting, the Bill needs additional improvements. Until it gets them we must decline to give it a Third Reading.

Mr. Mellor: With the permission of the House, I shall say a few final words as the Bill passes on its way to another place.
After 38 sittings of the Committee and 17½ hours on Report, I fear that my final words cannot be very original. I apologise to hon. Members who may have heard it all before. Perhaps the best way for me to show my appreciation of British broadcasting is by emulating it and making speeches that are good on repeat.
I thank all those hon. Members who participated in the debate for the kind words that they have spoken about my stewardship of the Bill. I genuinely appreciate that.
I understand that differences between ourselves and the. Opposition over the Bill remain, but I believe that people will look back on the Bill as a major development for British broadcasting, with beneficial consequences.
There will be a proliferation of community radio stations, which will enhance listeners' choice. I do not agree with the description by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for the simple reason that the criterion in the Bill is that, to get a licence, a station must enlarge listeners' choice. The fact that there were dozens of applications for some 20 incremental licences which were recently awarded clearly shows that there is no shortage of demand from broadcasters, and there is plenty of evidence—the success of the Jazz FM station in London proves this—that the listener wants greater choice.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members have seemed to want commercialism as an optional extra to commercial television, but commercial television has to be commercially viable to succeed. We have striven to strike a fair balance between regulations which preserve that which is best in British broadcasting and creating a competitive framework so that proper commercial decisions can be taken. That is particularly fitting for Channel 3, which has had a declining market share in recent years, and would protect it from the rigours of the 1990s when it will not have a monopoly but would have to compete against another terrestrial channel, Channel 5, for which we have made provision, and against satellite channels for advertising finance.
We have given Channel 3 the elbow room that it will need to be competitive, while ensuring that no one can get a Channel 3 franchise who is not properly qualified or has not surmounted a rigorous quality test. If, having surmounted that test, one of the applicants soars over it so much better than the rest, even if he is an under-bidder


financially, he can win the franchise. That is one of the key elements to have emerged during the parliamentary stages of the Bill.
I believe that it is a good Bill. It has been well and thoroughly scrutinised, and deserves to go to the other place with the approbation of the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 180.

Division No. 200]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Farr, Sir John


Atkinson, David
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Benyon, W.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Churchill, Mr
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Irving, Sir Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thompson. D. (Calder Valley)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thorne, Neil


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Owen. Rt Hon Dr David
Wheeler, Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Paisley, Rev Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Porter, David (Waveney)
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Price, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Goodlad and


Redwood, John
Mr. David Lightbown.


Renton, Rt Hon Tim





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Blair, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul






Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gordon, Mildred


Buchan, Norman
Gould, Bryan


Buckley, George J.
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ingram, Adam


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Greville


Dixon, Don
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kilfedder, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Leadbitter, Ted


Fisher, Mark
Leighton, Ron


Flannery, Martin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Livingstone, Ken


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foulkes, George
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fraser, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
Macdonald, Calum A.





McFall, John
Robertson, George


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Robinson, Geoffrey


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Nellist, Dave
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Neill, Martin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Prescott, John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Ken Eastbam.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the judge's announcement today that the poll tax capping of Bristol, Basildon and Doncaster cannot continue until the result of the judicial review of the appealing authorities. Has the Minister given notice that he will come to the House to make a statement on the serious chaos and disarray of the poll tax legislation and on the destruction of local authority services as a result of that legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have not received requests for a statement on this or any other matter.

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will remember that a Bill similar, if not identical, to this Bill was tabled last Session and in previous Sessions. The title was certainly the same. You will also know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the sponsor of a Bill, if certain hon. Members have objections, usually tries to see those hon. Members to see whether an accommodation can be reached. On previous occasions when the Bill was before the House, as far as the Opposition are aware, no such approaches were made by the sponsor. The Bill is here in almost exactly the same form for yet another Session. When there is such a long list of private Bills, why has this Bill been given precedence, when it should have been at the end of the queue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In accordance with past practice and precedents, many factors have to be taken into account in determining which Bills shall be brought before the House for debated proceedings. The Bill has been treated no differently from any other. The hon. Gentleman's first point is a matter for debate rather than a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may have come to your attention that Ministers announced this afternoon at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that infections related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been found in a domestic cat. That information was available to Ministers earlier, so they could have come to the House to make a statement. It is clear that all the assurances that we have had on mad cow disease no longer hold. Have Ministers made an approach to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for permission to make a statement in the House? This is a matter of serious public concern.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received a request on this or any other matter. I am sure that what has been said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation. Millions of pounds are being lost each year because the

system lacks security. It is important that those who use the system and who pay for its service should not suffer the cost while leaving many to get away without paying. According to the annual survey, it is calculated that no less than £26 million a year is currently lost on the underground and £15 million a year on the buses. That loss is far too big to be acceptable.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Inevitably, it is difficult to calculate losses because as the money has already been lost, it is hard to say how much it was. What is the basis of the calculations and figures, bearing in mind that they must be an estimate based on a notional loss each day or each week?

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman is right. The figures are estimated and calculated by people who specialise in such work. They calculate how many people travel on different modes of transport and they establish visually those who pay and those who do not. They are thus able to take a record. They are professionals and we rely on their expertise.

Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will the hon. Gentleman tell us for how many years the losses have been taking place and why over those years London Regional Transport, which the hon. Gentleman represents tonight, has not taken on adequate staff to prevent those losses?

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should know far more about the subject than most of us because of his previous experience. He will know, therefore, of the difficulty in assessing tickets as they pass through the barrer and of the difficulty in seeing whether they are in order. We are beholden to take advantage of the modern technology currently available to us. I do not think that there is any suggestion that fewer staff should be employed; it is merely suggested that they should be deployed differently. That is only sensible. It would be silly of us to try to rely upon the systems that were in operation when the hon. Gentleman was collecting tickets on the railway many years ago.
A proper system for reducing that discrepancy is needed, and that is why the Bill has been introduced. It is similar to a measure passed last Session to give penalty fare powers to British Rail. There are many conditions of which the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before the measure can be introduced. He has to be satisfied that there is adequate staffing, that sufficient machines are available, that the arrangements for monitoring defective machines are adequate and that ticket inspectors are properly trained. There must be adequate publicity about the introduction of the system and there must be a disputes and appeals procedure. The Secretary of State must examine those important matters carefully and diligently. It would be wrong to assume that the Secretary of State was uncritical about standards——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is already a criminal offence not to pay one's fare? Can he explain why we need to introduce the Bill, which would impose a smaller penalty than would at the moment be imposed on a person convicted of dodging his fare? Will he confirm that


London underground is looking for a much lower standard of proof, as opposed to increasing the penalties and tackling the problem properly?

Mr. Thorne: I cannot accept that. I am afraid that the present system for prosecuting people who evade their fares is extremely complicated. Such prosecutions require a great deal of legal preparation; they have to go through the courts, which is an extremely time-consuming procedure. These days, it is much more usual to have standard penalties and they have come to be accepted for many small road traffic offences. If people are travelling on the underground system, it is right and proper that they should obtain a ticket before they start on their journey, and it is quite wrong that the majority of passengers who pay their fares should be expected to carry this additional burden. I cannot, therefore, accept that the old method is right or proper.
Most of us have suffered the inconvenience of using machines that are not up to standard. In the past, many justifiable criticisms have been made of ticket machines, especially those that are required to give change. Technology, however, has moved quickly, and it is now possible to produce extremely reliable and effective machines at underground stations. Ticket machines are now available 99·9 per cent. of the time and can give change. In addition to the booking office, there are never fewer than two machines at any station, and at busy stations there are many more. With that in mind, we must grasp the opportunity to take advantage of modern technology, thereby reducing the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, late at night, unstaffed underground stations represent a considerable peril to old people and women? If ticket and change machines are available instead of staff, fewer people will want to travel late at night and people in difficulties will not be able to find anyone to give them assistance. If one is in danger of being mugged, a ticket machine is not much help.

Mr. Thorne: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The stations to which I am referring usually have at least one person in the ticket office and one on the barrier. If those people are not on duty, the gates have to be left open. That affords much better protection than can be given in stations that operate an open system which does not require ticket delivery and collection on the spot but relies instead upon tickets being checked during the journey.
Questions will be asked about the security of the system. On the London underground the volume of traffic is such that it is not possible for tickets to be checked on trains as they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on LRT is £2·90 and a penalty of £10 is appropriate. On the docklands light railway, and on the buses, the penalty is £5. That represents a major difference between the present proposal and any system proposed for British Rail. The present proposal takes account of the lower charges on the docklands light railway and the buses. The penalty has to be geared accordingly.
Validation of tickets has been a major problem on the docklands light railway, and the system has therefore been replaced so that tickets are now validated on issue. The checking of tickets at peak periods has become impossible because the railway is so busy. Staff can do much, and they

should be much more involved in the success of the operation. Staff will be fully consulted before implementation.
Although fraud has always been a factor, it has substantially increased in recent years. That is unacceptable, especially for genuine, honest fare-paying members of the public, who represent the majority of those who use public transport. It would be wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it for any longer than can be avoided.
It is important that we realise that there will be major provisions to ensure that travellers who are not trying to evade their fare will be able to call in aid an excuse. Passengers will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if no facilities for ticket sales were available at the station at which the journey started. If the passenger transfers to the London underground or to the docklands light railway from British Rail and the British Rail station at which he started his journey had no facilities for the sale of tickets, or if a notice was displayed at the station at which he started his journey—whether a British Rail, underground, or docklands light railway station—stating that it was permissible for passengers to travel without a ticket, or if an authorised person in uniform informed the passenger to that effect, he will not be liable to pay the penalty.
If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by a London underground or docklands light railway authorised official, and says that he could not obtain it for one or more of those reasons, it is for London underground or the docklands light railway authorities to prove that his reason is not correct. The onus is on them. If a passenger wishes to invoke one of the reasons later, he has 21 days to do so from the day after the completion of the journey. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If the passenger does not provide an explanation in such terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies. That seems to be an effective and sensible way in which to conduct the arrangements.
It is important that we should introduce the measure as early as possible so that we may take advantage of the available modern technology and substantially reduce the number of people who are defrauding their fellow passengers—a number that is likely to increase if we do not take firm steps against such practice.
When a measure similar to the present Bill was debated last Session, hon. Members referred to the automatic ticket gates. Technically, the gates form no part of the arrangements provided in the Bill, as it is possible to have penalty fares without the gates and vice versa. But the two matters are inter-related to the extent that the automatic gates will act as a check on up to 80 per cent. of journeys, as that is the number of journeys that end or begin in the central area.
The gates have been in operation for two years now and London underground has considerable experience of them. In spite of the campaign of vilification against them, the gates are safe and they work. They were reviewed by the railway inspectorate and an independent firm of consultants and—with the exception of some matters of detail—given a clean bill of health. They work, by which I mean that they check tickets very well, and they are safe. So far from being the safety hazard that people predicted they would be, the gates increase the area available for evacuation in an emergency because there are far more gates than there were narrow exits in the days when tickets


were collected manually. The gates are normally attended, and when they are not, they are left open, so there is no risk to the public. Because the gates are staffed, they pose no problem for the handicapped or for people with children or shopping because they can be let through a wider gate, although it is the general rule that passengers should go through the normal gates whenever possible.
The real test of the gates is passenger acceptance. That has been achieved to a large extent. Criticism has reduced to only a low level and there is no evidence that passengers are having any difficulties with the gates. Even now London Underground is considering other improvements. An experiment is being carried out at three stations—Victoria, Green Park and St. James's Park—to test a touch-and-pass system. Under that system the ticket is simply touched on a pad on the gate. It does not have to be fed through the machine. The experiment has been running for only a short time but seems to be doing well.
We must acknowledge that the sums of £26 million per year for London Underground and £15 million per year for buses are large. They must be made up by the honest fare-paying passenger. It is entirely wrong that fare-paying passengers pay more than they need to, particularly at a time when we are anxious that the general public should use public transport as much as possible to relieve congestion on the roads. The House should be encouraged to vote the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Harry Cohen: With two of my hon. Friends, I have tabled a blocking motion to the Bill. It says:
On Second Reading of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
In fact, I do not want the Bill to be read a Second time today, in six months or at any time in the future. The wording of the motion is such that we have to say that we wish it to be read in six months' time. Parliamentary language often confuses people. The purpose of the motion is to block the Bill. I wholly oppose the Bill.

Mr. Denis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cohen: Certainly—my hon. Friend is an expert on parliamentary language.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Irvine Patnick: We do not want the back of the hon. Gentleman's head.

Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with it?

Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is a Whip.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, he is getting ready for Friday. He comes in on Fridays and shouts "Object" to all the Bills, including Bills to give more money to pensioners and abolish standing charges. He is there to stop things like that—he has a cruel job. I do not know what the people in Sheffield think, but I keep drawing their attention to it.
To come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will he explain to the public—especially the people in the Strangers' Gallery, although

we are not supposed to refer to them—what a blocking motion is? There are not many times in parliamentary procedural life when one can do a job for the general public. The textbooks explain what a blocking motion is. People write books and tell us what it is all about, but when we get them it is different. My hon. Friend should explain slowly what a blocking motion is. He might get on telly—indeed, I will bet diamonds that he will be on the Parliament programme tomorrow.

Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether I will get on the television, mainly because my explanation is not likely to be particularly good or erudite. I am not so great an expert on these matters as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If an item is chosen for the television, I hope that it will be the joke that I am about to tell about London Regional Transport. Run by the present lot in charge, with the backing of the Tory Government, it is a bit like a cocktail—a long slow queue. Increasingly, there are long slow queues at the bus stops. That is my joke for the telly.
I am not an expert on blocking motions. The promoter, London Regional Transport, is trying to jump the queue and bounce the Bill through the House without proper discussion. That is why points of order were raised at the beginning of the debate. The Bill is the equivalent of a Bill introduced in the last Session of this Parliament. It was blocked on that occasion and went no further. It was not allowed to be carried over into this Session. London Regional Transport still wants it to jump ahead of all the other Bills, but it will not get away with that. My hon. Friends and I are alert to that game. We have put down our names as objectors to force this debate and we hope to force the Bill out. The blocking motion means that the whole thing will be put off for six months.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not think that my hon. Friend's joke was very good. If he wants to get himself on television, he would do better by explaining the blocking motion. Will he confirm that the whole idea of blocking the Bill for six months is so that the promoter can talk to the people who object to the Bill and attempt to find a compromise to meet their objections? I have been approached by London Regional Transport about the Bill. My hon. Friend's name is the first on the blocking motion. Has he been approached by or had any discussions with London Regional Transport?

Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent point. As my hon. Friend says, the purpose of the blocking motion is to allow the promoter of the Bill to meet the hon. Member whose name is on it to see whether the objectors' fears can be allayed. I objected to the Bill in the last Session of Parliament and in the Session before that. In all that time, the promoter has not come to discuss my objections to the Bill.
I recently received a letter from some public relations person or manager at British Rail. Unfortunately, I do not have the letter with me. It was remiss of me not to bring it. If some hon. Member wants to keep talking while I run across to my office for it I could read it out to the House. As that is not feasible, we shall have to forgo that. I received the letter just two days before this debate, asking whether I wanted to meet the person who wrote it. We have been busy recently in the House. Members of Parliament are busy people. I have had a series of meetings on vitally important issues this week. I have an


Adjournment debate on the Health Service tomorrow. I was looking forward to debating the subject with the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), but he has been moved sideways—or promoted, I do not know which—by the Prime Minister. I now have to face a new Minister who has no idea about the Health Service. I also had to brief myself for this debate. How could I find time to meet a representative of British Rail at one day's notice?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend had to read an article as well.

Mr. Cohen: That is right. I had to read the article by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about his attitude to current political issues.

Mr. Skinner: What did my hon. Friend reckon to it?

Mr. Cohen: I shall not respond to that as I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not allow it.
If local authorities should be accountable, so should LRT. It should stand for election every year, especially when it wants to introduce a Bill that will cost the public more money.
My hon. Friend asked about the Henley formula for local authority elections. He wants that formula to operate according to a level set by the Government of what a council's spending should be. If a council spent in excess of that level it would have to hold an election. That is politically manipulative. Only Labour authorities would have to have elections every year. I will not mind the system because when a Labour Government returns to power we shall set the level for Conservative councils so low that they will have to hold an election every year. The Labour councils will not have to hold an election every year. If the Government play political games with the level of spending and the poll tax, we should do the same. Unelected quangos should also face an election.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If London Regional Transport were still under the democratic accountability to which it was subject when the Greater London Council was responsible for transport, issues such as that presented by the Bill would have been thrashed out in an open forum. There would have been consultation with all involved, including people with interests such as that of my hon. Friend.
Would my hon. Friend join me in utterly condemning the decision that has just been made in the House of Lords to uphold the Secretary of State's decision to allow county hall, from where we used to exercise democratic control over London Regional Transport, to be turned into a hotel? Does he not agree that that is an insult and Labour party spokesmen must pledge tonight the Labour party will take county hall back by compulsory purchase when it forms the next Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is still on his preamble and getting warmed up, but I am sure that he will resist the temptation put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) which would be quite out of order in this debate.

Mr. Cohen: I shall resist that temptation and say only that I agree that it is an absolute disgrace and scandal that London is the only capital in the western world without its

own democratic regional government. The result is the chaos that we see all around London, in all services, including transport. That is why Bills such as this one come before the House—Bills which are ill thought out, badly backed up by statistics and about which no one has been consulted. Such Bills are bad for London. We need to get a democratic forum back into London.
In an earlier intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talked about what consultation we had had, and, as I said, I received a letter in the past two days, which was derisory. In today's post I received a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Bill's Second Reading. I have glanced through it to see what points I could raise in the debate and found two straight away. First, the corporation claims that fare evasion is
currently estimated at £26 million per year on the underground and £15 million per year on the buses.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) talked about those figures, but where is the proof? Such figures were mentioned in our previous debate on the subject, and the one before that. Automatic ticket barriers were put in, allegedly to try to reduce those figures. Some £.150 million was spent on trying to reduce the figures, and yet the same figures are brought out yet again in support of the Bill without a scrap of evidence to back them up. I do not believe them.

Mr. Snape: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the powers-that-be decided to inflict on this city and others throughout the United Kingdom the system of operating buses with only one person, many of us warned that such a system would lead to widespread fare evasion for obvious reasons? We were ignored then and the Bill is a belated attempt to patch up that gap which, particularly in this city, should be taken care of by the provision of buses operated by two people. That would help not only to reduce fare evasion, but would considerably reduce traffic congestion, not only in London, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cohen: I agree that there is a level of fare evasion that runs into millions of pounds during the course of a year. As my hon. Friend said, that is made worse by one-person operation and every time the fares rise higher than the inflation level. That has been the case year after year as the Government have taken away the subsidies. However, I do not believe that those are the figures quoted in the statement. They might be, but where is the evidence and proof? There is none whatever.
Secondly, the statement says:
the level of penalty fares payable would be—

(a) in respect of any bus journey or any journey solely on the Docklands Railway £5; and
(b) in respect of any other train journey, £10."

In my view, £10 is much too much—it is a punitive fine. Why is the docklands light railway getting favourable discrimination? Yet again, the Government are pumping money into the docklands at the cost of the rest of London, and giving those people in the docklands privileged treatment.
I put down a parliamentary question about how much the Government had spent solely on publicity and advertising for the docklands corporation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will be interested in this point because he is always interested when money is misused. I found out that the Government gave the docklands corporation—just for publicity and advertising,


nothing else—£17 million in the past eight and a half years. That is due to go up another £10 million in the next three years—£27 million in 11½ years. That money could have been much better spent on public transport throughout London. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has good ideas about how that sort of money could be spent. There is discrimination in favour of docklands travellers, and we are given no reason why that is included in the statement. We can only conclude that it is part of the discrimination against the rest of London and the rest of the country.

Mr. Skinner: Is that where Dr. Death lives?

Mr. Cohen: Yes; he is one of the Limehouse founders.

Mr. Skinner: He is doing all right.

Mr. Cohen: I should not say this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) advises me not to do so, but I will just say that I am sure that Dr. Death pays his fares when travelling on public transport. In fact, I doubt whether he travels on it at all. When he was in government he got into the habit of going around in chauffeured cars, and I bet that that is what he still does. Ironically, that is also what the board members of London Regional Transport do—they rarely use the public transport that they inflict on the rest of London, but go around in chauffeured cars.
I was on the Committee which set up the London Regional Transport quango when the GLC was abolished and democratic control and democratic public input were taken away. There was a clause in the Bill allowing money to be spent on the board going around in chauffeured cars. I raised that in Committee.

Mr. Skinner: Were they Daimlers?

Mr. Cohen: We were not told, but I suspect that if they had the chance they would have Rolls-Royces because they are happy to waste public money, as we have seen with the automatic ticket barriers. The statement raises more problems than it solves, and we have received it on the very day that the Bill is debated in the House. Such a consultation process is desultory.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I do not want to divert my hon. Friend, but has he considered the possibility that, as a quid pro quo for penalty fares, a penalty in the reverse direction should be imposed on London Regional Transport, perhaps by way of a fare refund to passengers who repeatedly have to endure the lack of escalators when they are out of order for months and months? We are not getting the service that we are paying for. As people who pay our fares and use London Regional Transport a great deal—although we are provincial Members of Parliament, we have to use London transport—we do not get the service for which we are paying. The escalators simply do not work.

Mr. Cohen: That point was well made by my hon. Friend. I support the idea of reverse penalties, which should apply when lifts are not working. I know that in Walthamstow Central the lifts were not working for six to eight months. The last time I was there they were working,

but last year they were out of action for six to eight months. If LRT had to pay all the passengers because of that, it would soon get the lifts back in order.

Mrs. Wise: Many elerly women passengers—there are more elderly women than elderly men—are prevented from travelling at all if escalators are out of order. Women with infants and babies find that transport in London is beyond their reach if an escalator is not working.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such deficiencies mean that people cannot use the public transport on which they rely. Because of the way the brain functions, when one steps on an escalator that is not working the brain thinks that it is. I am sure that we have all experienced that. It is a normal brain pattern to make allowances for moving escalators. One could easily fall down the stairs and suffer severe injuries.

Mrs. Wise: It is even more dangerous for a woman carrying a toddler.

Mr. Cohen: That is right. Earlier I spoke about the docklands light railway. I used that railway to go to a concert with my foster lad. It was a very good concert given by "Simply Red". Being a socialist, I was pleased to see "Simply Red' giving an excellent concert.

Mr. Skinner: What kind of music does "Simply Red" play?

Mr. Cohen: It plays sort of jazz and pop. My foster lad and I and everyone in the audience enjoyed the concert immensely. It was easy to get to on the docklands light railway because one almost falls out of the station—I forget which one it was—and into the concert hall. Just before the concert started, it was announced that the docklands light railway was not running back because the electricity had been cut off. The hall was packed with people and they were virtually stranded in the middle of nowhere on the Isle of Dogs. My foster lad and I had to walk back in pouring rain. Such breakdowns happen regularly because the Government, with the help of LRT, carried out a shoddy and rotten job on the railway. A shovel being pushed into the ground is enough to stop the tube. The Queen got trapped in a train.

Mr. Skinner: On the tube?

Mr. Cohen: The Queen does not travel on the tube. The docklands light railway is overland and passengers can get a view of the Thames and see all the building work that is going on. Apparently the Queen was travelling on that railway and some fellow put a shovel in the ground, which interfered with the electricity and the Queen was trapped in the train. The system is quite appalling, and because it was made on the cheap we are getting all these problems.

Mr. Skinner: Is that why Prince Philip keeps saying, "Pull your finger out"?

Mr. Cohen: His comment might have had some bearing on that, but I do not blame him becase he would not want his wife—I would not want to see anybody's wife— trapped on a train for a long time.
All those people, myself included, were stranded on an appallingly wet evening and the situation was potentially quite dangerous. LRT should have paid fines to the people whom it had lumbered in that way. It put on a couple of buses, but they were small, cheap buses.

Mr. Skinner: Did the Queen take a bus?

Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether LRT laid on a bus for the Queen. I think that it was a Rolls-Royce. One of the directors had to stay in his office that day and could not go out for his expensive lunch at Claridges because his car was being used to carry the Queen. I think that that was the case, but I am not sure. He probably had two lunches the next day at the taxpayer's expense.

Mr. Skinner: Was the whole Royal family there?

Mr. Cohen: I think that it was just the Queen putting on a public relations show, and in many respects she does that very well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), but it is exceedingly difficult to do so when there is a running commentary going on.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke about the monarch not paying any poll tax. She gets away with not having to put up any money to finance London Regional Transport even though she used it on that occasion. If I was stuck in a train, I would not want to put up any money for London Regional Transport. Many Londoners are packed in like sardines—it is worse every morning and they pay dearly for it in fares and taxes. Now they have to fork out poll tax as well. I shall have more to say about that later.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I travelled on the tube this morning to come here. I had to stand with my hands down in my fraction of space and almost all the other passengers in my section could not move. How will the people checking fares move through such a compartment?

Mr. Cohen: It will create chaos. I have been on the tube four times today already. It was crowded at midday, well after the rush hour. Three inspectors got on one of the trains on which I travelled, but in the cramped conditions that my hon. Friend describes it will be impossible for even one inspector to do his job.

Mr. Skinner: It is a relief to come to this place—there is plenty of space here.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, it is a blessing. There are not many hon. Members here for the debate. There are not many Conservatives here because they do not care about London Regional Transport. They do not travel on it. We rarely have a debate on LRT. Yet on one of these rare occasions, Conservative Members do not have the decency to turn up. I get a couple of letters every week from constituents complaining about bus and train services. Conservative Members must receive such letters, too. This is a rare chance to debate the matter, but they cannot be bothered to turn up.
There is a silver lining, however. Having travelled on the tube today and been caught in the congestion, it is a pleasure to come here to a relatively quiet House and to have a bit of walking space to make a speech or to shuffle up and down the Benches. That is quite an advantage. There is little opportunity to debate London Regional Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) served on the Committee that considered the Bill that set up LRT'. He did sterling work in raising issue after issue of concern to Londoners. The

then Ministers derided my hon. Friend's concern about congestion, lack of investment and all the other problems. Of course, he has now been proved right.
When LRT took over from the Greater London council —the democratically elected transport authority for London—the Government pledged that, because there would be no democratic debate in LRT's board—its members were appointed, not elected—Members of Parliament would fulfil the role of elected councillors. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West argued that, because of problems with time and because Members of Parliament must consider national issues, they could not do such a good job as the elected local councillors had done.
Nevertheless, the Government pledged that there would be an annual debate on LRT, under the umbrella of the levy order. Because of the introduction of poll tax, the levy order has been dropped. Londoners still pay towards LRT. The Government have reduced the grant to London local authorities, so poll tax bills are higher than they should be. We can no longer have the annual debate because the levy order has been dropped, so democratically accountable Members of Parliament cannot raise issues on behalf of their constituents.
I wrote to the Leader of the House and complained bitterly about that, but he said that it did not matter. He said that there would be many other opportunities for hon. Members to raise points about LRT, such as during questions.

Mr. Tony Banks: We cannot get in during questions.

Mr. Cohen: That is right. Question Time is no substitute for a proper debate. If an hon. Member does not have a question in the top 10, he is unlikely to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Many other national transport issues are involved.
Having received that reply from the Leader of the House, I assumed that he meant that we could raise points in debates such as this. Perhaps that is why this Bill from LRT has jumped the queue. It is a conspiracy. The Leader of the House is trying to help me by allowing LRT to jump the queue. That is no way to deal with these matters. We are discussing a specific item about penalty fares, so London hon. Members probably do not know that they can raise other issues to do with LRT. Perhaps that is why they are not here. I had it on the good authority of the Leader of the House that we can raise other matters, and I shall do just that.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend mentioned democratic accountability. Is he aware of the good work of the GLC in making the then London Transport more accountable? Even more should have been done, and the GLC should have had a tighter grip on London Transport. My hon. Friend may not be aware of the many important changes for the benefit of women and, indeed, for the continuing good business of London Transport.
For example, the then chair of the GLC women's committee, as an elected councillor speaking on behalf of the women of London, approached London Transport with the full facts and figures about the obnoxious advertising that was a positive danger and that caused great distress to women. She prevailed on the then board of London Transport to alter its policy and to show more respect for women. She pointed out that women were afraid to travel because of the feelings aroused by those


advertisements. She was able to do that because there was democratic accountability. All that valuable work has now been cut off.

Mr. Tony Banks: Who was the chair of that committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members will recollect that we are dealing with penalty fares.

Mr. Cohen: I certainly recollect that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, we are talking about fines. If deeply offensive advertisements appear on tubes and buses, LRT should be made to pay compensation to those who find them distressing.

Mrs. Wise: London Regional Transport has not dared to revert to London Transport's policy. That democratic accountability still has a ripple effect. However, the longer that London is without a democracy the greater the danger that the gains will be lost.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She referred to the chair of the GLC women's committee. I can reveal that it was none other than Councillor Valerie Wise, my hon. Friend's daughter. She was well trained in democratic accountability and good policies for women and for London's passengers in general. Of course, Dave Wexall also did excellent work. He has a fantastic record. If we compare how transport was run under the GLC and how it is run by the new lot, Dave Wexall comes out with flying colours. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West contributed a great deal to the improved policies and democratic accountability. The former leader of the GLC, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), played an important part.
I sense that you are about to stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we could do with a higher political profile in London. Someone like my hon. Friend——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. I realise that he is being tempted by some very tempting interventions, but I am sure he will direct his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: The point about accountability is important. London Regional Transport has its hands on the money. Under this Bill, it will also have its hands on the penalty fares. It is already abusing the system with all the cuts in services. There are declining conditions—filthy stations and congestion.

Mr. Skinner: The £26 million to which reference has been made is a flea bite compared with the £6 billion-worth of fraud that took place in the Common Market and which the Tories voted to permit. Let us not forget that, after a debate in which my hon. Friends and I said that we did not like the idea of £6 billion-worth of fraud occurring in the EC, the Tories, led by the Prime Minister, voted, in effect saying, "That's okay, because it's the Common Market."
It is clear that we are talking about fraud, in this case said to be worth £26 million. In view of my hon. Friend's knowledge of this subject, he should explain clearly what is likely to happen to that £26 million. I have come into the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of this subject I respect. Will he say what the new model Labour plan is for London Regional Transport? Will he

throw out a few ideas about what the future holds for LRT, without our needing to potter about with private Bills?
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will contribute to the debate later. Meanwhile, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to encourage him by being forthright. Let us have a little adventure and imagination.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am all for adventure, so long as it is within the context of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with money being spent on the tubes and buses for the benefit of Londoners and passengers generally. I fear that, if we pass the Bill and LRT gets its hands on the money, it will go straight to the Treasury, which will then further reduce the subsidy to LRT, which has been cut already. We know what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will do with the money——

Mr. Skinner: Build bigger gates at the entrance to Downing street.

Mr. Cohen: Exactly—provide bigger gates to No. 10. In that context, I can reveal that there is a secret underground railway system from the Ministry of Defence, No. 10 and other Government Departments to certain destinations. I would like to bet that penalty fares will not be imposed on that tube line. I want the sponsor of the Bill to say whether its provisions will apply to the Prime Minister when she jumps on the secret tube that operates from No. 10 Downing street and takes her out into the country when there is a revolution. Will a penalty fare be imposed on her if she does not pay her fare? Do inspectors exist with authority to go on that secret line?
We must have answers to those questions because, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may be right to say that the additional money will go on bigger gates at the entrance to Downing street, some of it may go on improving that secret underground system, so enabling the Prime Minister, bureaucrats and top civil servants to enjoy it. Whatever happens, the public will not get the benefit of the money.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I hope that my hon. Friend is not dodging the question of what will happen to the £26 million. I understood that the case for the Bill last year was that £26 million was being lost. That was claimed before the automatic gates were introduced. Was not the idea of the automatic gates—apart from chopping people up—to stop that fraud? How much fraud is going on now, and how much is likely to be saved as a result of the Bill?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right to say that the excuse for introducing these mechanical rottweilers, as the automatic ticket barriers can be described—let us not forget that people have been badly injured when the gates have closed on them—was to reduce the £26 million of evasion. There was no proof last year that that was the loss. But now, the mechanical rottweilers having been introduced at many stations, we are told that £26 million is still being lost. As a result, LRT is apparently introducing what is described as a touch-and-pass system.

Mr. Skinner: What is that?

Mr. Cohen: It is for the sponsor to answer my hon. Friend's question. I believe that it will operate on tickets the way in which goods are passed over a magic eye at


Sainsburys. A photographic eye will open the barrier, I gather, although we have yet to be told whether barriers will be associated with the new machinery. The fact that LRT is moving to a new system so quickly, having spent £150 million installing ticket barriers, is an admission that there has been an appalling waste of money by the unaccountable, Government-appointed board of LRT.
Let us compare that expenditure of £150 million with the £26 million that it is claimed is being lost through evasion. It is said, "The Conservatives cost you less." What a waste we have witnessed already. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to speak of the waste that has occurred in the Common Market. We could also refer to the fraud at Harrods——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: About £600 million.

Mr. Cohen: Worth millions, as my hon. Friend points out. There has not been a glimmer of action from the Government on that. We do not see any private Bills on that subject. What about the Johnson Matthey fraud?

Mr. Skinner: About £100 million.

Mr. Cohen: That involved millions, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interruptions are putting the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) off his stride. They are most unfair.

Mr. Cohen: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Only last week, a mugger snatched a suitcase from somebody in the street and made off with Treasury bonds, which are apparently exchangeable for cash, worth £292 million. Frankly, something stinks over that. I do not believe that an individual could have got away with a crime such as that. Organised people must have been behind it.

Mr. Skinner: How did the mugger get away?

Mr. Cohen: He probably made off on the tube, having paid his fare. Apparently no inspector was in evidence to ask him to open his suitcase, as will happen to others on the tube.
As I explained, the money that is raised will go to the Treasury and be wasted, as it has wasted £83 billion of North sea oil revenues. This will be a drop in the ocean by comparison. It will be used as a bribe at the next general election and, when that is over, it will finance huge tax cuts for the rich. In other words, somebody who has not paid his fare will be caught and the money raised by that means will go to the rich, rather than to LRT to run a better service for its passengers.
The railway inspectorate's report on one-man operated trains has been censored. We do not know how dangerous such trains will be—for example, they may have to stop deep in tunnels—but when they are introduced, fare evasion will increase, just as it did on the buses.
High fares also mean greater fare evasion. When fares go up way above the rate of inflation, as they have done, more people cannot afford them and so are encouraged to try to avoid paying. There should be better ticket facilities at every station—not just machines but ticket offices with staff. At the moment, with one person at each ticket office there are big queues, and that encourages people in a hurry to dodge a queue and not pay their fares. They are

desperate to get into work, yet they see train after train going. They are afraid that the boss will fine them—not London Regional Transport—by docking their wages if they do not get to work on time. Staffing is a key element.
In line with Government policy, LRT can spend as much money as it wants on white elephants such as ticket barriers—just like the channel tunnel and other such projects—but the purpose is to cut staff; to put people out of work who would otherwise be doing a good job and playing a role in safety. The Government do not care how much money they spend on throwing people out of work. They see that as weakening trade unions.

Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware of another hazard that arises from the introduction of machines which accept £5 notes? If a machine goes wrong, because of the lack of staff, a passenger must wait and wait. It is embarrassing to have to elbow a queue aside for attention, but people simply cannot afford to leave their £5 note in the machine. That illustrates the need for more staff to help in the issuing of tickets, which in turn will reduce fare evasion.

Mr. Tony Banks: Machines which will take an arm and a leg.

Mr. Cohen: Taking £5 for a fare is taking an arm and a leg.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston makes heir point well. Lack of staff could lead to terrific disruption and perhaps even a punch-up. People who cannot get their change to see them through the day could cause a fuss while lots of other people are waiting in the queue. I do not have a narrow mouth, as witnessed by my long speech, but many station entrances do, and that makes the automatic ticket barriers dangerous.
The frustration created by not being able to obtain change or by waiting in a queue could lead to a serious punch-up and even loss of life. When that happens, LRT and its board will disclaim all responsibility. They will say that it was nothing to do with them because they were not there, and they will not have been there because their staff will not have been there.
I have said where the money from such penalty fares will go under this Government, but under a Labour Government it would go towards improving the service for passengers. We had a voluminous report on the terrible tragedy at King's Cross, but many of its recommendations have not been carried out. LRT has only just got round to banning smoking on the underground, but it has not banned the shops on the stations from selling cigarettes. Many other recommendations have not been implemented. Safety drills have not been implemented. Again, staffing is crucial to safety procedures. I am sad to have to say that the lessons of the King's Cross fire have not been learnt.
Often, when I travel on the tube, I can see that something has been going on. Too many people are waiting, or a platform is empty, and one knows that something has happened. A couple of weeks ago, I was travelling home by car after a late vote in the House when I saw fire engines outside the Embankment station. Luckily, it was late at night, but if it had been the rush hour, the station would have been very busy, because many people, even Members of Parliament, change lines there. There could have been a terrible accident. Fires are still occurring.
The lessons of King's Cross have not been learnt, and one reason for that is that there is no money to improve safety measures and to clean up stations. Stations and trains are squalid and dirty. The seats on the train that I travelled on today were falling off; they were uncomfort-able and filthy. Many cleaning staff have been cut. It is most unpleasant for Londoners to travel in such conditions. Even when a train is relatively uncongested, it is most unpleasant to have to sit in such filth and squalor.
The Labour party has said that it will move in the right direction, but I hope that we will put money into safety, into a big clean-up of the underground and into reversing the cuts on the buses. Many pensioners make great use of the free bus pass which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and I were instrumental in winning, with the assistance of all London's pensioners. But what is the good of having a pass without the buses?

Mr. Tony Banks: I take this opportunity to make it clear from the Front Bench on behalf of the Labour party that, when we form the next Government, one of the prime responsibilities of the new London council, which a Labour Government will install through elections in London, will be for transport and transport planning, and many of the good points which my hon. Friend is making in his excellent speech tonight will, I am sure, be embodied in future Government policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: We are talking about a £10 penalty and, given the level of fare evasion, that will be a lot of money.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The fines last year were £10 and £5. I understand that, in the past 12 months, there has been a certain measure of inflation. My pensioners reckon that it is about 15 or 16 per cent. I gather that the Government will announce an inflation figure of 9·9 per cent. tomorrow as a fantastic triumph. If there has been 10 per cent. inflation, should not the penalties be £11 and £5·50? Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the Bill, the Secretary of State has power, by order, to increase the figure? Will he inquire of the Minister whether he intends to increase the penalties some time within the next couple of years?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made some telling points. First, he asked why the level of the proposed fine would not take inflation into account. That is because London Regional Transport has given no justification for wanting a particular level of fine: the figure has been plucked out of the air. The point about the Minister being able to alter the fine at random, and without the House debating it properly, is associated with what I said earlier about the rights of debate being taken away from London hon. Members.
That is another reason why we should reject the Bill tonight: it is a blank cheque. Notwithstanding the £5 or £10 specified in the explanatory statement, the day after the Bill was passed, the Minister could say that the Government were increasing that figure to £25 or £50. The House would have no control over that.
I am not convinced that we should go along the route of penalty fines, but money spent by a future Labour Government would be spent on improved safety,

improved services, keeping fares down, better staffing and better cleaning on our buses and in our stations. That is what the people want.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that any penalty or punishment is effective only if people are caught? The elaborate arrangement of barriers is extremely effective —I fear, too effective: I am nervous in case there is a fire. Even with that effective barrier system, if people continue to evade fares, how can they be caught in the future?
The imposition of a penalty in a Bill is not the same as imposing it on a person. LRT has said that as it will take fewer criminal prosecutions. Does that make it less likely that people will be caught, and more likely that people will take the risk of a £10 fine, rather than the disgrace of a prosecution? Surely that would work against LRT.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I shall refer to on-the-spot fines later, and whether they will lead to a criminal record.
In my opinion, the barriers have not worked. The problem is that LRT seems to be putting its efforts into what could be a violent campaign. If the inspectors—such as the three that I saw this morning—cannot get their fare, presumably there will be a punch-up if people try to escape without paying. I can envisage a "Rambo of the LRT": there will be films about "The Bill"—the "Transport Bill" along the lines of "Starsky and Hutch" and "Miami Vice". There is only a small amount of fare evasion, but a would-be script writer for the BBC, the IBA or Sky Television could perhaps create a series called "Tottenham Court Road Vice".

Mrs. Wise: Has my hon. Friend read clause 5 (2)(a) of the Bill? It excludes from penalty anyone who finds that, when he started to travel,
there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey.
Is my hon. Friend aware that that is quite a common occurrence? I can envisage much nervousness being engendered in passengers who are forced to travel without a fare, and may have to argue the toss about whether they are travelling illegally, or whether that had been thrust on them. Although the Bill excludes them, I can envisage some unpleasant incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to have staff to issue the tickets in the first place, instead of thrusting apparent evasion upon people?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that clause. Apart from the nervousness caused to passengers who could not obtain a ticket, trying to prove that there were no facilities available at the station where they boarded will be almost impossible, especially when they are surrounded by three burly inspectors. In many cases, I suspect that the money will be forced out of people by intimidation. There should be an absolute guarantee that staff will be available to issue tickets at stations every minute of the day, but there is nothing along those lines in the Bill.
There has been virtually no consultation. LRT has imposed many cuts—for example, on the 38 and 55 bus services that used to run from Leyton garage. That cut was arbitrary. I tabled early-day motion 630, which says:
That this House condemns London Regional Transport for cutting the 38 and 55 bus routes from Leyton; notes that this is not only means a reduced service to the public enforcing upon them bus changes, longer waits, extra cost and less safety but also a threat to the jobs at Leyton Bus Garage; and


is further angry at the unaccountable way in which London Regional Transport made this decision effectively ignoring hundreds of letters and a thousand plus signed petition opposing the cuts.
Now the number is approaching 2,000.
I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Le Jeune, who is a public relations officer at LRT. It was addressed to the second sponsor of my motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The letter said that there had been consultation before the cuts to the 38 and 55 buses were made: it was a public relations diatribe.
LRT did indeed consult; the reply from 1,800 people was that they did not want the cuts. However, it went ahead with them. It was nonsense to say that people were consulted. It is no good consulting people and then not taking any notice of what they say. There has been chicanery on the part of the public relations people in LRT.
In March, London Labour Members of Parliament received a letter from the chairman of LRT. He said that the other system of consultation with Members had not been working—I did not know that there was one—and that he would arrange a one-off dinner for London Labour Members. A dinner is a poor substitute for a democratic input of information, but we were to have a dinner. I intended to raise at it the cuts in the Nos. 38 and 55 bus services and the objections of the 1,800 people. Surprise, surprise—the dinner was cancelled. LRT is not interested in an input from the people. Now the dinner has been set up for late July. That is the consultation that is to take place with London Labour Members. It is absolutely derisory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering away from the Bill; I am sure that he will come back to it.

Mr. Cohen: I was setting the scene in regard to consultation about the Bill. I have already mentioned the short letter we got from the sponsors and the statement we got today in the post. That statement is full of holes. There has not been proper consultation with hon. Members or with councillors. I do not think that there has been any consultation with London councillors. I do not think that there has even been consultation with trade unions. Why does not the statement tell us what the trade unions think about the Bill? When the Bill was before us last Session, I asked what the trade unions had to say because their members may suffer violence as a result of the Bill. Yet again it comes before us, with not a word about what the trade unions think. If they have been consulted, the consultation has not been of much use.
What consultation has there been with the public? Have there been any advertisements in the underground to let people know that the Bill is going through Parliament and that they have a right to make suggestions to LRT or to their Members of Parliament? I have not seen any advertisements. I suspect that most of the public have no idea that we are discussing the matter, because LRT is not interested in telling the public about its plans.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just a London matter but that the transport arrangements in the capital affect people who travel to London for many purposes from all parts of the country? Even if there had been excellent consultation arrangements for London

Members, it would be grossly inadequate if Members generally were not consulted. It is the concern of all hon. Members.
Does my hon. Friend further accept that it was probably a great service to him that LRT cancelled the consultation dinner, because many of his constituents might have misunderstood it if he had gone to a dinner with LRT when their bus services were being cut? My recommendation would be to insist that LRT consults properly at meetings which are held for the purpose and which are open to the public.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend, but when there is no other opportunity to raise the concern of my constituents, I have to take whatever opportunities I can. It is not for need of a dinner that I would go—I probably go to fewer dinners than other hon. Members—but it would be a rare opportunity to raise the concern of my constituents.
I intended to co-ordinate the March dinner with the handing in of postcards signed by many objectors in my constituency. When the dinner was cancelled, we went along with the postcards and the petition against the cuts in services. LRT refused to accept the petition. I was forced to send it to the then Minister, even though I knew what response I would get from him. That is a joke as well. All he said was, "Thank you for the petition, but it is a matter for LRT."
I suspect that the new Minister will say the same when he has got his feet properly under the table, because that is what he did in regard to the Health Service. Previously, I raised with him the budget deficits and the chronic and life-threatening underfunding of local health authorities. He replied that it was a matter not for him but for the local health authority——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with the Health Service; that is miles away from the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I am talking not about the Health Service but about the pattern of Minister's behaviour when they get petitions.
When there are protests over the working of the legislation, passengers may be beaten up by inspectors, or an innocent bystander may be caught in a terrible fracas. As a result, relatives may write to their Member. If the Member tries to take the matter up with LRT, it will say that it is not accountable. If the Member passes the complaint to the Minister for Public Transport, he will say that it has nothing to do with him but is a matter for LRT.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was right to point out in an earlier intervention that penalty fares will be an opportunity for the application of a lower standard of proof. That was pooh-poohed by the sponsor, the hon. Member for Ilford, South, but I cannot see how there can be anything but lower standards. An inspector will tell the passenger to pay up because the law says that he must do so. The passenger may say that he was not disobeying the law because there were no facilities to buy a ticket at the station where he got on the train. He may even quote the provision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has referred, but the inspector will tell him that, if he does not pay up, he will go to court and get a criminal record.
I foresee an additional problem. I am not straying from the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but just this week I read in a newspaper about two people impersonating social


workers in an attempt to get access to children. That was a shocking case, and I hope that they are caught and dealt with. Impersonation takes place. I can envisage impersonation on trains.
All someone needs is a uniform; some poor London Transport inspector may even be mugged for his uniform. Someone impersonating an inspector will be free to roam up and down every train, collecting penalty fares. There is nothing in the Bill to say how that will be stopped. LRT may say that it has transport police, but the problem of impersonation has not been covered. Some people will stop at nothing to make a few bob. Desperate individuals will see it as an easy way of conning the public.
There is no mention in LRT's statement of whether a person will get a criminal record under the new system. Paragraph 5 of LRT's statement confirms:
This penalty would be payable on the spot or within 21 days but, if the passenger refuses to pay the penalty, the Corporation could, and do intend to, institute civil, rather than criminal, proceedings for recovery, except in cases involving flagrant dishonesty when prosecutions will be brought.
It is all very well saying that, but advert after advert warns that people must buy a ticket if they are not to get a criminal record. We must be clear whether a person risks a criminal record following the implementation of this legislation.
What will happen to the information about a person's name and address, which must be given when the spot fine is paid? Data are already exchanged between Government Departments and provided to other organisations that should not receive them. Information provided in connection with the poll tax ends up with all kinds of credit agencies and senders of junk mail.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend explain how the inspector can be sure that he has been given the right name and address? Is there not a danger that individuals will give false information, so that a person who was never involved ends up with a criminal record? Also, how will payment within 21 days be enforced if the information is false?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. If false information is given, the fine cannot be enforced. That implies that inspectors will really have to lean on the individual, demanding to see proper identification. If it is not produced, all kinds of heavy tactics might come into play. A person who happens not to be carrying any identification may find himself taken to the police station and criminalised.
It is even possible that people will maliciously give the name and address of a person they do not like—perhaps a neighbour. The Government are currently into a campaign of encouraging people to snitch on their neighbour. That is how the poll tax will develop. When the Government start running anti-scrounger campaigns, they will say, "Snitch on your neighbour. Who lives with your neighbour and should be paying poll tax?" The Government will encourage the public to snitch under this Bill as well.
In these days of modern data transfer, there now exist minicomputers and microcomputers. Within a few years, inspectors could be walking around carrying a micro-computer into which they will be able to enter the name

and address of the fine payer, which information will then be transferred on to a large database at Broadway, or wherever the offices are. An innocent person could find that his name has been entered into the records, yet he will have no chance to have it deleted. His first problem will arise when he is brought before the court and denies that he was the individual concerned. The magistrate may say, "I don't believe you. You are fined anyway." That individual's good character will be besmirched.
Under the Data Protection Act 1984, the public cannot have access to police records to see whether any information that they contain is incorrect and to have it corrected. Both the police and the security services have exemption from the provisions of that legislation. Some poor individual named by another as a fare dodger may find his name entered into the police records, with no opportunity to have a correction made. The advertisements warn "Get a ticket, not a criminal record." They feature a man who has a respectable job in the City and who is likely to lose it because of his criminal record for fare dodging. An innocent person could find himself in the same situation because of the Bill.
The sponsor referred to a dispute and appeals procedure. Come off it. How will that work in reality? The dispute procedure will be a blooming great punch-up.

Mrs. Wise: Paragraph (2) of the preamble, on page 1 of the Bill, states:
It is the general duty of London Regional Transport pursuant to section 2 of the said Act of 1984, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and in conjunction with the British Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London and in carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to (a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London and (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
Later, it is stated that it is in pursuance of those objectives that LRT is presenting the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the current state of London's transport services, and given the duty placed on LRT to ensure
efficiency, economy and safety of operation
and that the capital's transport needs are met, it is extraordinary that the only measure that LRT has seen fit to put before the House is one dealing with fare penalties?
Does not my hon. Friend agree that LRT should concern itself more with a great many other matters? If fare penalties were but one aspect of a comprehensive programme of improving London's transport, the House might look with more favour upon the Bill. In the circumstances, is it not extraordinary that LRT can state its general duties but then go on to present the provisions that are in the Bill?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill by no means represents part of a comprehensive package covering the capital's transport needs as a whole, or in respect only of LRT's
efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
It is the only measure that LRT has put before the House. We have never been asked to consider fare levels, congestion, or the filth and squalor that are all part of the same issue.
"London in Need", a report by the London Boroughs Grants Committee and the London Research Centre, states:


Recent events such as major accidents on both the Underground and British Rail have led to a loss of confidence in the safety of London's transport systems.
Safety was one of the items referred to in the Bill. The report goes on to criticise ticket barriers and says that:
The cost of travel by public transport in London is high. According to the Association of London Authorities, fares are higher than any other city in the EC. That creates particular problems for people on low incomes, who may be unable to afford a car and are reliant on public transport.
That is a good point well made. Such people will be encumbered with penalties as well.
I have here the latest edition of the "Capital Transport Bulletin"—no, not the latest, but the March-April edition. I have not seen a May edition yet. It is probably the latest edition. It contains an index of public transport fares for 1987 which shows that London was well ahead of Oslo, Copenhagen, Vienna, Dusseldorf, Helsinki, Zurich, Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Madrid, Tokyo, Geneva, Brussels, New York, Chicago, Luxembourg, Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Montreal, Lisbon, Houston, Milan, Nicosia and Athens. Fares in some of those cities cost half or a third as much as fares in London. In 1987 the only city with higher fares was Stockholm, which has a small and wealthy population compared with London.
Since 1987 there have been fare rises well above the rate of inflation. It would not surprise me if we did not have the highest fares now.
The "London in Need" report also says:
Women have less access to private transport than men and, because many are carers of young children, elderly people and people with disabilities, they tend to suffer more from the inaccessibility of transport systems and irregular services.
I should have thought that that would have been covered by a comprehensive package in the part of the Bill which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. It mentions economy, efficiency, safety and the transport needs of London travellers.
Personal safety is a major anxiety for Londoners when they walk or use public transport. The report continues:
While overcrowding is a problem during peak hours, deserted trains and stations are also a problem, particularly late at night. When questioned about travelling by public transport at night, female respondents to a survey by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust in March 1989, said they were most uneasy about travelling by underground, followed by British Rail, and were least worried about travelling by bus. There is a need for more staff and better lighting at stations at night.
The need for better lighting has not so far been mentioned. London Regional Transport has given no sign that it would spend the money which it intends to raise by penalty fares on such things as better lighting. I doubt if it will.
London Regional Transport has had a vast amount of money passing through its coffers. Fares have increased substantially over the period that it has been in control, but the money has not gone on lighting or safety. In the Bill all we get is a small part of a package about penalty fares and not the comprehensive improvement that it needs.
The "London in Need" report also said:
Two women-only taxi services are currently operating in Hammersmith and Lambeth; there is a need for similar schemes to be set up in other areas.
London Regional Transport is not interested in that but it is supposed to provide public transport, to work for the public.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept—and he may dwell on this for a little while—that LRT's investment in

ticket machines is in contrast to the large number of escalators which are supposed to carry thousands of people every day but are out of use, being repaired in many underground stations? That leads to congestion, danger and difficulty for thousands of people. Surely LRT's first concern should be the thousands of people travelling on its services, but they would appear to be its last concern.

Mr. Cohen: That is a good point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston mentioned it earlier. I shall repeat what I said to her. There should be penalty fines in reverse. British Telecom has set up such a system, although it is pretty weak. I am not sure that it has ever paid out under the system, but it claims to pay if it does not provide a good service. London Regional Transport should do that. However, if that were enacted, as LRT is run so incompetently at the moment it would never stop paying out. LRT would not be able to run a transport service because it would be continually paying out. It is incompetent and makes vicious cuts that are against the public interest, such as those to the 38 and 55 bus routes in my constituency.

Mrs. Wise: Has my hon. Friend thought about the peculiarity of the Bill's long title? It states that the Bill empowers the charging of penalty fares, but it goes on "and for related purposes". I have looked through the Bill and I cannot find any related purposes. I can find only provisions relating to penalty fares and that is why I am so critical of the Bill. Could it be that LRT has some plan to introduce other clauses that have not yet been disclosed if the Bill receives a Second Reading and reaches Committee? Otherwise, why should those drafting the Bill take the precaution of including the phrase "and for related purposes"? Has my hon. Friend any ideas about what those related purposes could possibly be?

Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. We have already heard that the Minister has powers to make regulations to increase fines at will without telling the House. There have been a couple of private Members' Bills, including the one last Friday that was diluted somewhat by my amendment —it was the best I could do in the circumstances. The Computer Misuse Bill was brought to the Floor of the House without police powers, but when it reached Committee it suddenly included some stringent search powers. The Sexual Offences Bill about kerb crawling is to be debated tomorrow. I admit that there needs to be legislation to deal with men who kerb crawl, but all of a sudden inserted into that Bill are considerable police powers, which I suspect will be aimed more at women than at men. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, I wonder whether strong police powers will be inserted into it backed by the Metropolitan police and London Regional Transport. The Bill is about collecting fares, but in my view it is also about increasing violence and intimidation. LRT will need those powers if it is to use such methods.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I would not want my hon. Friend to mislead the House. There are some stringent rules that apply to private Bills which cannot grow in scope because of the rights of people to petition from outside. The Bill can be only narrowed in scope.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that and bow to my hon. Friend's expertise, but I am worried about the Bill's related purposes. I remind my hon. Friend what happened when


automatic ticket barriers were first introduced. I cannot remember all the details, but we had specific assurances that their use would be strictly limited, that other entrances would be open at all times and that they would be staffed to assist people who had problems using the automatic ticket barriers. But within a short time the alternative entrances had been blocked off and people were forced to use the automatic barriers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish raised the matter and pointed out that it was a breach of the undertakings that had been given at the time.
I am worried that the Bill provides for related purposes as LRT will latch on to that to breach any undertakings that are given or say that any breach is covered by that phrase. I understand my hon. Friend's point that the Bill can be only narrowed in scope, but I wonder why the phrase was used in the first place.

Mr. Cryer: It may well be that LRT has some order-making powers. Previous private Bills that have become Acts grant order-making powers in the form of byelaws to such bodies as LRT. It may well be that the idea is that, once the Bill is enacted, it will be possible to produce more bylaws within the framework of the Bill and to say that they are related to the legislation which has the authority of Parliament. I say that because it is amazing that Parliament has granted so many powers to so many people over the years.

Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. I must bow to the great expertise of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish, who have a wealth of experience from Committees about the procedures and workings of the House. Their points are especially relevant.
It is likely not only that regulations can be made to substantially increase the fines—and perhaps for other, unknown purposes—but that there may be byelaws, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South suggested. Everything hinges on the phrase "and related purposes". We do not know what we are buying, if that is the correct word, if we pass the Bill on that basis.
The Bill refers to the "transport needs" of London. Penalty fares are allegedly a part of London Regional Transport working for London's transport needs as a whole. What about the disabled? The report by the London Research Centre for the London Boroughs Grants Committee says:
People with disabilities have limited access to transport in London; this restricts their access to employment, education, leisure and other opportunities. The absence of lifts at most Underground stations, a lack of staff at stations and a lack of information about the ability to interchange from one mode of transport to another, inhibits the ability of people with disabilities to travel in the capital. While the number of Dial-a-Ride journeys made in 1988/89 rose to over 540,000, a condition of LRT funding only allows them to be short ie to no more than one mile outside borough boundaries."—
a ridiculous restriction
Greater operational integration between the various types of transport service in London is needed and Dial-a-Ride should be able to provide longer journeys.
I agree. There is nothing about that in the Bill although it talks about the "transport needs" of London, and about "efficiency, economy and safety". If disabled people

cannot get to their place of employment, that does little for London's economy and discriminates against the disabled. There is nothing in the Bill for the disabled.
The position for the disabled is becoming worse. I have heard enormous protests from those concerned with dial-a-ride and from the disabled about the regionalisation plans of London Regional Transport. I see that you are becoming anxious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not know why. I am talking about the transport needs of London as a whole.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am becoming anxious because the Bill is about the penalty fares of those travelling without valid tickets. The hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to have little to do with that.

Mr. Cohen: I was wondering whether penalty fares would apply to disabled people travelling on the system as a whole. There is already great discrimination against disabled people travelling on the system. They have to seek permission before they can travel on the tube and the buses are appalling as well. I referred to the booklet "Capital Transport Bulletin" of the Capital Transport Campaign. The campaign has drawn up a petition which says:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House take necessary legislative action to require that all new buses and coaches purchased from 1992 by operators in the United Kingdom be accessible to all people with disabilities including all wheelchair users.
That petition will come to the House and I hope that it has a great horde of signatures.
Presumably, a disabled person who tries to use the underground without permission could find himself having to pay a penalty fare. Let us suppose that a disabled person went up to the ticket office and said, "I should like permission to travel on the tube" and the member of staff concerned said, "Nothing to do with me, guy; I don't know what the rules are." That disabled person could then find when he had boarded the train that an inspector came along and asked him, "Where is your permission? Penalty fare imposed!" That could happen. I do not know whether it will, but it certainly could and, if it does, the disabled will be discriminated against once more.
Let us suppose that disabled people use the dial-a-ride services. Will penalty fares apply on dial-a-ride? I should not think so, but it must be said that there is a dispute between the dial-a-ride committees and LRT at the moment, and a huge row about the regionalisation proposals. I could read the House some of the letters that I have received. Presumably, if LRT does not get its way, it will punish the dial-a-ride associations, and penalty fares may be one way of doing that.

Mr. Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on circumstances in which a disabled person obtains access but does not have a ticket because there is too much of a hurry or because he is busy handling a wheelchair? Is it not likely that if he is accused of not paying his fare and is therefore subject to a penalty fare, he will seek to avoid further action? Clause 9(1)(a) provides that no action is to be taken if the passenger has paid the penalty fare to the person providing the service. The disabled person might well feel that the easiest way out is to pay the fare and get the authorities off his back. The Bill thus allows for a potential intimidation of disabled people who already face great difficulties in life without having such obligations thrust upon them.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, I think that there is an element of intimidation. I have given some examples already. I think that the Bill will lead to the intimidation of able-bodied people—let alone disabled people, always supposing that they can gain access to the transport system in the first place, which a lot of them cannot because LRT has been slow to improve access to buses and train services.
As I said, there are many problems with the dial-a-ride system. One local resident in Waltham Forest, Mr. Docking of the Walthamstow Older Persons Forum, complained about it. He said that the regionalisation—I presume that he also means the penalty fares or other penalties imposed by LRT on disabled people—
will take away all local control. Should this change come about it will affect the most vulnerable persons in our community, the old and impaired, and those who suffer from some disability and cannot always use public transport. Also, there are many of our older community who are afraid to use a normal bus service at night when they wish to make a visit. The more difficult it becomes to obtain a Dial-a-Ride bus the more people become homebound. This change, should it come, could cause a number of things to happen—fewer buses to cope with a greater number of people. A complete breakdown of the system unable to cope with the already unsatisfactory booking system. and shorter journeys. Dial-a-Ride has already suffered by a shortage of buses. Are we now beginning to see the end? Is this what London Transport would like to see? When are we going to be consulted on the changes that affect our way of life—or are we just to settle for a cup of tea and a chat and accept what we are given?
They do not even get a cup of tea and a chat but they are certainly being told that they must accept what they have been given.
We have not had satisfactory answers from LRT about its plans for the regionalisation of dial-a-ride. These matters are related to the Bill, and I make no apology for referring to the state of the underground or the cuts in the 38 and 55 bus routes for the very reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech. We have been refused the opportunity to debate LRT issues in the House and the system entails no local democratic accountability.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is puzzling that London Regional Transport preferred to take the time of the House to introduce this measure on penalty fares rather than deal with some of the serious issues to which he referred? Would it not have been far better if it had not introduced a Bill such as this but suggested to the Government that, if we need a system of penalties, it should be introduced across the whole country, not on a local basis? It would have been far better to introduce a Bill to improve London transport along the lines that my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Cohen: That is the case. We are still waiting for a comprehensive set of proposals for London Regional Transport on which the London public can be fully consulted and can have an input in decision-making. We need proposals that will make a significant improvement in the transport system. My hon. Friend is right that penalty fares should not be a small part of a piecemeal package for London—the rest of the package is non-existent—which does not apply to the rest of the country.
The Government should have said to LRT, "Go to the back of the queue on the penalty fares issue. First, we want to extend to the rest of the country the system introduced by the GLC of free travel for pensioners." That should have had a higher priority than penalty fares.
It is not simply a matter of fare dodging in London. There is a lot more to the matter, such as safety, cleaning up the tube and introducing lower fares. Those points should also have come higher.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has rightly dealt extensively with the system. I refer him to the original cause of the Bill, which is the entirely unsubstantiated claim on which we have received a trivial and meretricious document from the promoters—who receive large sums of money for doing very little—about the amounts that are lost through fare dodging. We do not support fare dodging. LRT should have known that the cost would be dwelt on because it has been dwelt on before. Will my hon. Friend explain that there are still fare dodgers on conductor-operated buses —Routemaster buses on central routes and one-man or one-woman operated buses on other routes? Does he agree that the expensive ticket equipment that is supposed to work superbly, which was installed at a cost of many millions of pounds, was supposed to stop people getting on trains without a ticket anyway?

Mr. Cohen: That is right and it was touched on in the earlier part of the debate. The figures presented in the statement by LRT were completely unsubstantiated. LRT failed to come to any conclusions about the impact of the ticket barriers on fare dodging. It has simply churned out the same figures again. If the figures have not changed, automatic ticket barriers were a complete waste of millions and millions of pounds. The people responsible should be sacked for wasting public money.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the old argument about sacking incompetent managers is long gone? They should be transferred to repairing the escalators at the same rates of pay as the people who usually do the work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep to penalty fares.

Mr. Cohen: The point has been made and I shall take Mr. Deputy Speaker's advice and not dwell on that matter, but clearly high salaries are being paid. I expect that high salaries will not be paid to the inspectors. I saw three inspectors on the train this morning. They were women, put in the front line of potential violence. It may be that the fact that they are women will mean that violence will not take place. Their gender might help to stop violence in some cases. But it is typical of LRT to put women in the front line of the potential risk. I bet anything that those women are not highly paid but low paid for the risk that they take.
We should discuss in the House whether it will be the policy for inspectors to go round in threes to collect the penalty fare. A much better job for them would be looking after women's safety, rather than collecting the penalty fares. There should be good intercom systems so that if women are employed in the job—I do not begrudge them being employed in protecting other passengers because they do a good job and there are, quite rightly, women police officers—there must be a rapid back-up available.
In this discussion on penalty fares we have not heard what back-up inspectors will have. Will there be any? A train operated by one person might stop in a deep tunnel and there might be violence due to a dispute over a penalty fare. What sort of back-up would there be for inspectors


in the middle of a dangerous fracas? We have not heard a word about that in all the various times that the Bill has come before the House, which is quite scandalous.
No penalty fines will be imposed on those using the 38 and 55 buses because those buses have been cut. If they were reinstituted, I would be prepared to consider curtailing my speech, not raise so many issues and perhaps give the Bill a fairer wind. But we have heard nothing from the Government or LRT. They will not take our representations properly into account so the cuts are in place, despite public opposition to them in Leyton.
There could be a severe threat to jobs at Leyton garage because of the cuts on those two popular and useful bus services. I am informed that already an extra 500 people who use those buses to get to the west end and St. Bartholomew's hospital—who pay their fares regularly, would never get a penalty fare if such a system operated because they are model passengers and are only too keen to pay and use good local bus services—will now have to use the tube system that is already chronically overcrowded.
I invite the sponsor and LRT managers to come on the Central line to Walthamstow Central and Leytonstone tube stations in the rush hour. They should get out of their Rolls-Royces and chauffeur-driven cars, and come in the rush hour to see how overcrowded those tube stations are. They are forcing people in the Lea Bridge area of Leyton to join those terrible overcrowded trains. They should come along with some of those residents. Lea Bridge road is a couple of miles away from those tube stations and when the bus is not operating residents have to walk or change buses, which entails long waits. That places an enormous burden on those people who have never collected a penalty fare. However, LRT is punishing them by cutting the local bus service.
The demand for buses is increasing but LRT's reaction is to reduce the service. It has even decided to reduce bus services because it claims that the roads are too congested. What a cockeyed and about-turn way to look at things. LRT should be pressuring the Government to restrict private cars and increase bus lanes and public transport on the routes along the Lea Bridge road so that people will get out of their cars and use public transport. We have heard crazy notions from the board of LRT, which has no idea of the real problems or how to deal with them. The board had abdicated its responsibility for what the Bill calls
the transport needs for the time being of Greater London and (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation;".
The feeble and pathetic little measure before the House will impose penalty fares for which no good reason has been given. The purpose is to raise a small amount of income for LRT, but the money will not be spent on the system—it will go into the Treasury coffers and the Government will use it for other wider political services. In the meantime, London passengers are badly treated with late, filthy trains and buses, long delays, dirty stations and poor standards of safety.
I oppose the Bill. I have a file full of representations from constituents who are bitterly angry about cuts in the No. 38 and No. 55 bus services. They are also bitterly angry at the response of LRT, which has not taken their protests into account.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but he does not seem to have described two crimes which I encountered recently in connection with the new gates on the underground. Someone who looks a bit dozy enters the tube station followed by another person who puts a ticket into the machine. The first person, who is obviously without a ticket, takes the ticket of the second person, nips through the gates and on to the platform leaving the genuine ticket holder without a ticket.
The second situation relates to someone leaving the station. He puts a single journey ticket into the machine and is followed by a person who puts in a ticket that is either for several journeys that day or a season ticket. The single journey ticket does not come out of the machine and the person who inserted it lingers long enough to snatch the ticket of the person who is following. I suspect that those two crimes are developing on the underground. Will the penalty system work or will it deter inspectors from chasing that sort of crime?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend raises two important matters which have been raised before in the House. I have a thick file here, and another in my office, containing letters protesting against the cuts on the No. 38 and No. 55 bus routes. Those files are as big as the ones that I have full of letters from people protesting about the automatic ticket barriers. They gave the same sort of examples as those cited by my hon. Friend of people losing their season tickets. The cost of a season ticket can run into four figures, and will probably go even higher under this Government. The shortage of staff at stations means that criminals know that they can easily get away with that sort of crime. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle that.
Will the Minister put pressure on LRT to spell out its intentions for the automatic ticket barriers? It is introducing a touch-and-pass scheme. What will be the cost of that? It appears that LRT has endless amounts of money to spend on all sorts of ideas that have not been properly thought out and without having consulted. That lack of consultation and democracy lead to appalling schemes which waste vast sums of money. How much will the touch-and-pass scheme cost? Will there be a ticket barrier removal programme? If not, why not?
Will the two schemes run at the same time? What about the safety implications of the ticket barriers? In narrow-necked tube stations they are a tremendous safety problem. The Government and LRT have been let off lightly because we have not had another King's Cross. I am very pleased about that, but there have been a number of fires. The automatic ticket barriers are part of a package to catch the fare evader. Penalty fares are another part of that package. London Regional Transport has concentrated on that to the exclusion of all the other problems faced by London passengers, and it cannot even get that policy right, despite having spent millions of pounds on it.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend mentioned cuts in two bus routes in his constituency—apparently for the curious reason that LRT wants to take the buses off the road because they cause congestion. Clause 3 makes it clear that the Bill applies to any bus or train service. When in operation, one or two people will go around checking tickets. If there is a confrontation on a one-man operated bus, the bus will have to stop while it is sorted out. The money will be demanded and the penalty fare will be imposed. If the inspectors operate frequently, buses will be


at the side of the road during any altercations. That works against the argument that LRT used when it withdrew the bus routes.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remember a standard joke when one-man-operated buses were introduced. It was about the bus that crashed. When the driver was asked what happened, he replied, "I was upstairs collecting the fares at the time." I fear that there will be a similar running joke as a result of this measure. Following an accident, when a driver is asked what happened he will reply, "I don't know—I was inside the bus trying to collect penalty fares."
We do not know the trade union view of the Bill. If I am right and it is likely to lead to more altercations, assaults and violence, bus drivers and conductors and train drivers and guards will bear the brunt of that. Already, horrendous cases have occurred and staff have been killed by passengers following altercations. Immense anger is rightly created among staff at such incidents. Workers at many bus garages in London have gone on strike after colleagues have been severely assaulted or even killed. I recall a funeral procession from Leyton bus garage following the death of a worker due to violence. I fear that the Bill could increase such risks, mainly for inspectors, which is no doubt why they go round in threes. Before long they will be going round in fours and fives, although one wonders how they will make their way through congested trains.
We should have been given the workers' view of the Bill, but the Government hate the workers—they are not interested in the workers and will impose any conditions on them. That is why people have been killed building the Channel tunnel and on building sites——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member stick to the subject of LRT penalty fares, please?

Mr. Cohen: I am not leaving the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. London Regional Transport inspectors, who are workers, will he at risk. Imagine an inspector collecting penalty fares suddenly meeting a guy determined to get away with it—a fight ensues, out comes a knife and loss of life could result. That is not an unreal scenario.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware of two problems that will face the staff? First, there is the possibility of an altercation when someone refuses to give his name. Secondly, some fines will be collected on the spot, so inspectors will be carrying largish sums of money and there may he a temptation to take the money off them.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. The inspector carrying money will himself or herself become a target. That is all the more reason why, before long, they will be going round in fours and fives. The situation late at night will be particularly dangerous, given that much fare evasion occurs late at night and not just in the rush hours. Is LRT making arrangements, and is there anything in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill about this, to provide banking facilities at each station where money can be deposited?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is important for LRT to answer that question clearly. Perhaps the sponsor will intervene to explain the position. If the general public can be convinced that inspectors will not be carrying much

money because they will have ample opportunity to bank any money that they collect, people will be dissuaded from assaulting them.

Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether there will be banking points on every station. If there were, LRT would incur considerable capital expenditure because they would have to be secure and staffed. It would be like a Securicor van delivering cash to a bank. An inspector making For such a banking point could become a target for a mugger. There are many serious implications. We have not heard a whisper from LRT about whether there will be a banking point on every station. I doubt whether there will be. If there is not, inspectors will be put at severe risk.
A £10 fine one week could be increased to £20 the next and could shortly become £50. The inspector would only have to collect one or two fines before he was walking around with £200—an attractive target for a mugger. Attacks on inspectors would increase substantially, but LRT has not given the first thought to that. It has not even started to think about the implications.
I do not mind the idea of a bank on every station. The Government like to privatise everything under the sun. Perhaps we should have banks on every station from which people can obtain cash. That might have other implications, however—I should not put ideas into the Minister's head—sbut that should not come before the security of the inspectorate, which is my priority.
It is scandalous that trade unions were not consulted. At any rate, we have not been told of their response. LRT cannot be bothered even to put out a statement discussing the issues. Many issues have been raised during the debate, not just by me but in interventions. LRT has been trying to get the Bill through since 1986, but every time it reaches the Floor of the House the same points are raised. A management worth its salt would look at past debates in Hansard and consider its response to the points made. But on every occasion the Bill is introduced in exactly the same form, with unsubstantiated figures and fines plucked out of the blue. None of the important issues about which Members have expressed concern in the past are addressed. That says something about the lack of quality in LRT management.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the order-making powers in the Bill? Clause 3 gives power to the Secretary of State to make orders containing
such supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions (including transitional provisions) as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
That means that the penalties will be introduced by a statutory instrument under clause 10. It appears that such a statutory instrument will not have to come to the House. The Secretary of State will simply make an order which will come into effect. He has a wide range of powers because the only order required under the negative procedure, which does not have to be debated, is the amount of penalty fares to be described by order
subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is contained in clause 6(2). Could the Secretary of State not therefore set the process in train—to coin a phrase—without any further reference to the House?

Mr. Cohen: As I have said before, my hon. Friend has terrific expertise in these matters. He is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and his knowledge of the procedures and workings of the House,


and of the wording of Bills, statutory instruments and other regulations, is second to none. His points must be taken seriously. He says that under the Bill orders can be made by a Minister, who will not have to come to Parliament to justify what he is doing. That is serious and it is yet another factor working against the Bill.
Earlier we talked about the docklands transport system. It is a woefully inadequate system, and it is pathetic that no proper infrastructure was set up before the development. That is what happens when there are unaccountable planning authorities and also unaccountable transport authorities.
It has been said that there will be lower fines on the docklands light railway than on the buses and tubes in the capital, but what about the docklands riverbus? From what I can gather, it is used infrequently, mainly because it has not been properly developed for the maximum convenience of Londoners, who could make use of it if it had proper stops along the Thames. That is not to say that public money has not gone into it—a vast amount has, yet the fares are astronomical. It is more than £1 to travel one stop. When will Londoners get some value for their money? When will the riverbus be made more accessible to Londoners? Whenever I see it, it is empty—the money might as well be poured straight into the Thames. If someone stows away on the riverbus, will there be an inspector to charge a penalty fare? If so, will it be the £10 which applies to London buses and trains, or the £5 which applies on the docklands light railway? We should have answers to those questions.

Mr. Cryer: I am sorry to intervene as I know that my hon. Friend is pressed for time and is trying to curtail his remarks and to speak as succinctly as possible. Clause 3(1) of the Bill refers to
any bus or train service".
Clearly the riverbus service could come within the ambit of the proposals.

Mr. Cohen: That is a key question. It may be argued that it is a private service and that the Bill does not apply. It is Government policy to hand out millions of pounds of public money to private companies, so public money was involved. Presumably the principle of penalty fares should apply if public money is being defrauded.

Mr. Cryer: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to clause 3, under which the provisions apply to any other service provided
in pursuance of an agreement with the Corporation by virtue of section 3(2) of the 1984 Act".
What staggers me, and no doubt my hon. Friend, is that the point was not clarified beyond peradventure, as the lawyers say, by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr Thorne) when he was elaborating on why we should pass the Bill. He failed to do that.

Mr. Cohen: That is a fair point. If the Government support the principle of penalty fares, presumably they should have introduced a Bill to bring in penalty fares for the riverbus service. We have spent nearly three hours on the Bill, but if that is a private riverbus service, the Bill becomes—what do they call it?

Mr. Cryer: A hybrid Bill.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, it may be a hybrid Bill. If the riverbus service is excluded because it is private, although public money went into it, and if the Government intend later to bring in regulations to apply the legislation to the riverbus service, surely that would make the Bill hybrid. The hon. Member for Ilford, South and I should have been called to order at the beginning of the debate. Perhaps the debate should have been stopped because this may be a hybrid Bill. I am shocked that we have spent three hours of precious parliamentary time on what may be a hybrid Bill.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Having just come into the House, I am fascinated. I was watching the debate on television and I assumed that at some point my hon. Friend would give up the struggle against the reactionaries who run London Regional Transport. Instead of wasting hours of parliamentary time—we can assure the lackeys from London Regional Transport who are here that the debate will go on—the best way of tackling the problem would be to return to the policy adopted by the Labour-controlled GLC in 1981 and cut fares. When we did that, the new fares brought dramatic results. People were happy to pay reasonable fares to a socially-conscious authority, but they do not like paying exorbitant fares to the lickspittles of a Tory Government running London Regional Transport.

Mr. Cohen: The record of my hon. Friend's administration in running London transport services was miles better than that of the quango. It was the Tories and their allies who took that administration to court when it wanted cheap fares. It was the Tories who wanted high fares, and they have had their way ever since. At the recent local government election there was propaganda about Conservatives costing less. That should be set beside their action when they took the GLC to court on its low fares policy. The Conservatives cost people more. They cost the people in my area more when the Nos. 38 and 55 bus services were cut. My constituents have enormous problems in getting to work, and they are furious about it. They were not consulted. There was only nominal consultation. About 1,800 people said that they did not want the bus services to be cut——

Mr. Thorne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 25.

Division No. 201]
[10 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knapman, Roger


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mans, Keith


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Michael






Nicholls, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Roger Gale and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Lewis Stevens.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Nellist, Dave


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Pike, Peter L.


Boateng, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Galloway, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Ken Livingstone.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 17 May.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a serious matter when the Government are unable to maintain 100 Members in the House, particularly when they have an overall majority of 110, yet they are so disorganised, dismayed and defeated by the local government elections, particularly in Bradford——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Livingstone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am raising not a party political point, but the position of LRT's management. This is a vote of censure by the whole House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that if he raises such points of order, I am bound in all fairness to allow points to be made to the contrary, and then we would be re-embarking on the debate that has just concluded.

Orders of the Day — General Product Safety

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7480/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd April 1990 relating to general product safety; and supports the Government's view that any directive should be restricted to consumer products, that products covered by specified directives that concern safety should be excluded from the general directive, and that any additional burden on businesses should be kept to the minimum.
I welcome the fact that the Scrutiny Committee considered the draft directive to be an important document which should be debated on the Floor of the House. It is certainly an ambitious proposal from the Commission—in my view, too ambitious, as I will shortly argue—and if it were adopted it would affect virtually all sectors of industry. It is an attempt by the Commission to establish a Community-wide system of general safety legislation that it hopes will improve overall safety levels and consumer confidence within the single market.
Let me say straight away that the objectives of strengthening confidence in the single market and ensuring adequate levels of protection are something to which the United Kingdom can give wholehearted support. Indeed, no member state has a better record than the United Kingdom in terms of implementing and enforcing safety directives. But what concerns me is that these laudable objectives should not be compromised by unacceptable rules and requirements that do little to improve safety. It is also worth stressing that, in Britain, we are fortunate to have one of the most comprehensive and yet flexible systems of safety legislation anywhere in the world, never mind the Community; we therefore have much to offer the rest of the Community in discussing such issues.
The Commission suggests a general obligation on producers, importers and, in certain circumstances, others in the supply chain to supply only safe products. That would apply to all products, not just consumer goods, wherever used, and would therefore apply to those used in the workplace, on the farm, in the street, in hospitals or indeed anywhere else.
The Commission has also tried to set out procedures for handling safety problems, particularly emergencies at Community level. That would in some ways build on existing systems of notification and for the transfer of information on unsafe products between member states. But it also envisages the creation of a new committee to oversee the workings of the directive and any difficulties that arise.
The directive is a far-reaching initiative that would cut right across many existing arrangements for dealing with product safety. The approach adopted by the Commission did not reflect the legislative systems in any one member state, and was an effort to draw in various ideas and elements from a number of sources.
In September 1989 we issued a consultation document which asked for the views of business groups, consumer organisations, enforcement authorities and many individuals and companies in the United Kingdom. At that


stage, the Government did not express a firm view on any aspect of the proposal, preferring to seek opinions on an open basis.
A large number of responses was received which provided an interesting mix of attitudes. There was not a clear split between the business and consumer interests; far from it. Many business representatives saw considerable merit in improving safety levels throughout Europe, and were confident of being able to compete effectively on the basis of high EC safety standards. However, they were also very concerned about the additional burdens being suggested and what appeared to be overly bureaucratic controls and procedures.
The United Kingdom has considerable experience of this type of legislation, both in the consumer area and in the workplace under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. We have, therefore taken a full and constructive part in the debate so far. But experience also tells us about the potential problems and considerable differences of view which have separated the Commission and most member states. Most member states would prefer to set out the general principles but to leave some flexibility to member states to draft their legislation in such a way as to ensure that their courts will interpret the legislation in a similar way.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about the implication of the regulation for the United Kingdom. How does this sit with the policy or principle of subsidiarity, which is becoming recognised as a tenet of European Community policy?

Mr. Forth: That is an important question, and I shall touch on it later. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied, I hope that he will jog my memory. Suffice it to say at this stage that this is a general framework directive which seeks to underpin the principles of the single market, and therefore probably does not clash with the principle of subsidiarity. My hon. Friend may want to return to that point when I have completed my remarks, if I have not satisfied him.
As a result of the diverging approaches of the different member states, it has not been possible to agree a revised text of the directive that meets the concerns of all member states and the Commission. The explanatory memorandum that I submitted to the House on 3 April 1990 included a revised draft of the directive prepared by the French presidency—which left office at the end of last year —which was the basis of discussion at official level over recent months. It takes into account the points agreed in principle at the 9 November consumer Council, but it was, and remains, very much a draft for discussion and has not been accepted by either the Commission or any member state. Various redrafts have also been submitted as working documents, most notably a recent attempt by the Irish presidency to produce a compromise text, and within the last few days we have heard that the Commission is also preparing a new text.
However, there are a number of crucial points of principle that should guide our attitude to this directive. The first is what has been called the principle of subsidiarity. Put simply, where possible, it is for member states to decide on specific policy options, and it is only where there is a genuine Community dimension that action at EC level should be considered.
It is arguable—I put it no stronger at this stage—whether this directive is needed at all. The Commission suggests that it is vital for the completion of the single market and that the extra confidence it will give consumers will be essential in creating cross-border trade. This case has so far not been made, and given the very different methods employed by member states in protecting their citizens, it could equally well be argued that the disruption and extra costs that could be caused by such a directive might in practice be unwelcome to both consumers and businesses alike.
We need to consider whether the directive will actually lead to an improvement in overall safety levels, bearing in mind existing safety legislation—especially in the United Kingdom—and the impact of the new product liability directive. Again, there is a serious question over the general approach.
The Commission's role is also a major factor to consider here, especially if its involvement could lead to bureaucratic procedures that might slow down the ability of enforcement officers to take swift and effective action against unsafe products. We must remember that member states and their enforcement agencies will usually be best placed to decide on any appropriate action, as they have to date under article 36 of the treaty of Rome, and the Commission will rarely have the necessary expertise or experience—to say nothing of resources—to second-guess enforcement officers directly involved in a specific case.
The next point must be the very wide scope of the original Commission proposal. The Commission said that it decided to include all products because the same criteria for safety apply to all goods—wherever used—and because the difficulties of providing a workable definition of a consumer product were too great. This is clearly nonsense on both counts.
The United Kingdom has comprehensive safety legislation covering consumer goods and those products used at work, but we have long recognised that the circumstances in which the goods will be bought and used are completely different. Differences in skills, training, supervision, access to servicing and advice all point to different treatment, and that is reflected in the fact that the respective provisions and their enforcement differ in many respects.
Moreover, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides a perfectly acceptable definition of a consumer product, which can obviously be used as appropriate in other member states. Where there are grey areas—and they do, of course, exist—it is easy enough for the enforcement agencies involved to sort them out between them.
The United Kingdom and virtually all other member states have pressed strongly for the directive to be restricted to consumer goods. That was agreed by Ministers at the 9 November consumer Council, and the French presidency text includes a suggested definition. It needs more work, but it is unfortunate that the Commission still seems to be intent on staying with the wider, and in our view unworkable, coverage of its original text in the face of almost united opposition from all Community countries.
The overlap between the directive and other specific safety directives also caused much concern during the consultation exercise. It must be wrong in principle, as well as confusing in practice, to have different layers of legislation applying to the same product. The Commission envisages the new directive as acting as a sort of blanket


that covers all products and fills the gaps between specific vertical and "new approach" directives. What this approach ignores is the fact that in some cases the safety of a range of products has been considered in detail by a group of experts on them. There is real concern that the blanket approach may well disrupt the carefully constructed balance of interests for certain products.
Our view is that the most sensible way of removing uncertainty is to exclude products from the general safety directive entirely if the safety of those products has been covered already by another specific directive. If there are gaps in the protection afforded to consumers in respect of those products, it is for the specialist groups to consider the matter again. It is not for others to try to apply additional controls by another door.
The Commission has attempted to find a definition of a safe product that acknowledges the fact that it is impossible to ensure that all products are absolutely safe. A knife, for example, has a sharp edge and therefore will always present a risk of injury. The Commission's definition includes many features that are similar to those used in our Consumer Protection Act, but in some cases it has gone too far.
The most important problem is that there is difficulty in finding a sensible definition that will be interpreted in a similar way in all member states. Work goes on to find a compromise, and we must insist that any definition makes it clear that a sense of reasonableness has to be involved, and that in some cases a residual risk will inevitably remain —albeit with adequate warnings for the user.
Under United Kingdom consumer legislation, we can take action at all points in the supply chain. That enables enforcement officers to take action where they can be most effective. At the moment, the directive is restricted to manufacturers, importers and others in the supply chain whose activities affect the safety of the products. It is not at all clear what this will mean in practice and there is clearly the possibility of confusion in deciding how far individual companies are responsible. Our objective is therefore to try to retain the right to apply sanctions at all points in the distribution arrangements, where necessary providing adequate defences for particular circumstances.
The enforcement of directives is increasingly becoming a matter of concern throughout the Community—certainly in the United Kingdom and the Department. Responding to the consultation document, businesses frequently made the point that their competitive position would be improved by more uniform implementation and enforcement of directives throughout the Community and in each member state. This is a difficult issue, because there are dangers involved in a move towards more centralised control of enforcement powers and techniques.
More could be done to reduce the current unevenness —to put it mildly—and to promote more consistency. The Commission's original proposal suggests a list of powers in an illustrative annex. The French presidency text draws the powers within the body of the directive. I would argue that the list is too long, but there are strong arguments for including certain minimum controls in the text of the directive. That would mean that all member states should at least be taking similar action, which would provide a minimum level of harmonisation.
Controls such as taking arid testing samples of products, collecting information on potentially dangerous products, the power to ban a product and to require suppliers to warn customers about serious risks, must be

the cornerstones of any effective product safety regime, and there is much to be said for having them as part of the draft directive so that they apply to all member states.
The original proposal from the Commission would have involved a number of additional burdens on business. Chief among those was the requirement that the safety of products should be monitored at all stages of production and distribution and throughout the foreseeable time of use. Responsible companies will clearly take steps to ensure that they are aware of the risks presented by their products. The impact of the new law on product liability has also focused minds wonderfully well on the need to have in place adequate safety and quality controls.
However, again a worthwhile objective is largely ruined by a proposal that is far too prescriptive and detailed. These additional requirements would do little to raise overall safety levels but they would certainly increase administrative burdens and therefore costs to the consumer. Any new requirements on business must be kept to the absolute minimum, consistent with providing the appropriate level of safety.
The Commission's suggestions for action at Community level in serious or emergency situations would involve the creation of a new product safety committee comprised of representatives from member states. The way in which it would operate is rather complicated, but essentially the committee would be asked to discuss safety problems and to make recommendations on suitable measures to deal with the hazards. In certain circumstances, member states would be required to take agreed measures—even if they did not wish to do so—representing a considerable departure from current practice.
So far, the Commission has failed to justify the need for such a committee, or to demonstrate why it should have the powers suggested. It is for discussion whether there is a need for some sort of group at Community level to advise member states on unusual cross-border safety problems. But we are against any committee with the sort of role suggested in the Commission's text as it stands. Also, whatever procedures or institutions might be set up at Community level, it is of paramount importance that they should not result in cumbersome or bureaucratic systems that interfere with sensible enforcement action by member states.
These seem to me to be the main areas of contention raised by the Commission text. As I said earlier, the United Kingdom has considerable experience in this field, and we have played a constructive role in the discussions so far. Our views have the support of most other member states, particularly those who also have a well developed system of consumer safety legislation. The Commission has come forward with a proposal which, in spite of worthy objectives, is simply too ambitious in scope and raises many difficult problems for all member states.
We shall continue to work within the various working groups and in the Council of Ministers to overcome the difficulties, but it must be said, and I hope that the House recognises, that there is still much work to do before the directive can be ready for adoption. I hope that the House will agree that the Government have taken the right line in negotiations so far, and I invite the right hon. Members present to support the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out from first `safety' to end and add
`and regrets that the Government is seeking to restrict the directive and limit consumer rights.'.
The debate is on one of the most far-reaching pieces of consumer legislation that has been considered in this country. It proposes a blueprint for extending consumer rights in the 1990s throughout Europe and it offers to provide a high standard of protection for the public against dangerous goods. Sadly, it does not command the wholehearted support of the Government. In the motion that the Minister moved, the consumers' interest takes second place to the Government's prejudiced priority for their beloved free market interests. The aim of the directive is to prevent dangerous goods from abroad from being given free and unlimited access to the United Kingdom and European markets. It is unfortunate that such a measure does not command the support of the Government.
The directive offers the opportunity of establishing a mandatory framework for marking and tracing dangerous products, random safety testing of goods, comprehensive recording and assessment of safety aspects of consumer complaints and for all firms to appoint a consumer watchdog to monitor their product safety procedures. Unlike the Minister, we do not believe that that is too long a list. The Minister summarised the merits of the proposals last month when he said that the directive gives business the power to
monitor the safety of their product at all stages of production, distribution and use.
Only a Minister in this Government could go on to say that such admirable and clear aims were unwelcome and unduly burdensome on both businesses and member states.
On 3 April the Minister wrote of the directive:
progress on many of the key issues would be difficult.
He was too modest. He failed to claim the full credit that was due to him for his efforts to water down the directive. For him, the key issues are those which threaten to impose higher standards of safety on business. It is an irony that in a debate on consumer protection the Government seek to pursue three themes—to restrict, not expand, the product safety directive; to exclude products from its protective jurisdiction; and to minimise the burden on business. We have a Government who, when faced with supporting the consumer or business interests, always side with business against the consumer. Even in cases where business joins the consumer in pressing for tougher safety laws, we have a Government with a bagful of excuses.
The Glass and Glazing Federation has been pressing for the past six years for regulations to ensure that only safety glass is installed. Most of the 20,000 accidents that happen each year with glazing would be avoided if the right glass were used in the right place. For six years the glass industry has been campaigning for the Government to make BS6262 mandatory and for six years the Government have blocked that. Even when the industry is crying out for tougher mandatory standards, the

Government have dragged their feet and obstructed that important consumer measure. That is why it is no surprise to learn that the Government seek, in the motion, to weaken, not strengthen, an important product safety directive.
The Minister's Department has admitted that a range of products would be exempt from the safety provisions if the Minister succeeded in restricting the definition of goods covered. The consumer will have no protection under the Government's version of the directive against a wide range of potentially unsafe products such as motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, aircraft, gas, food, water, second hand goods or any product that business believes is for export. All are exempt.
The Minister might think that it is all well and good to exempt such goods, and for us to export our unsafe goods, but in reality the existing law is not coping and stopping other countries from sending hazardous products here. The Consumers Association has drawn attention to a dangerous heater manufactured in West Germany, banned from sale there, that was exported and sold in Britain this year. The Government want cars to be exempt because they are not used just by consumers.
The Minister says that he welcomes the Europe-wide initiative. Why then does the evidence that his Department gave on the matter to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities read like Custer's last stand? It has page after page of objections, and not just on this or that part of the directive. The Minister's Department told the Committee on 21 February that the whole thing was "over ambitious". It said:
We do not feel that this directive is going to make any real contribution to improving consumer safety".
The Government like to boast about how advanced they think this country's laws are. When the border controls have disappeared and a multiplicity of goods for the consumer, business and agriculture are traded without restriction between nations, when food, medicines and all manner of products can be shipped across half a continent with no frontiers or checks, this directive will prove to be the consumer's main line of defence. The weaker the Minister makes it, the more vulnerable our consumers will be. That is why the Consumers Association has asked for all the consumer protection measures listed in annex 1, inserted under the French draft, to be made mandatory rather than merely illustrative, as the Government want.
The Minister claims to have consulted consumer groups, but he has not listened to what they have to say. He has argued for the directive to be limited to consumer products only. For him, there is no need for further legislation. On 3 April he said:
For non-consumer products there is a wide range of existing safety legislation which provides comprehensive protection from unsafe products.
That is not the view of any consumer organisation. The National Consumer Council wants all products to be treated equally when it comes to safety, not just to be limited to consumer products—a phrase that would keep all the Euro-lawyers talking for a decade.
If we consider the Minister's critics, we see that the Townswomen's Guilds, the National Council of Women of Great Britain and Age Concern support article 2(a). The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) may snigger at that, but they and 27 other organisations represented by consumers in the European Community group argue against the Government's


attempt to restrict the directive's scope to certain goods only. The Minister may be correct when he claims that there are some effective directives that already cover individual types of product. That is not the issue here. But what if there are? It is better to be safe than sorry. Medicines, food and food products are excluded from the general safety duty in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the unamended directive would therefore apply. The Consumers Association has already drawn attention to the unsatisfactory procedures in the Netherlands and Italy for withdrawing unsafe products. Such goods can be sent to Britain. A directive limited to consumer goods does not provide comprehensive cover and protection for the United Kingdom consumer. A general product safety directive would do that.
The Minister rightly mentioned the burdens placed on industry. No one can seriously ignore that, nor do we seek to ignore it. However, it is not unreasonable to expect industry to subject itself to the closest scrutiny on product safety. Many British firms lead the world in monitoring the safety of goods at every stage of production from design to sale. If such high standards can be met by British firms, why should other businesses at home and abroad get away with second best?
The Confederation of British Industry has said that achieving harmony in monitoring the safety of widely diverse products may pose problems. The directive does not seek harmony in monitoring so much as high safety standards. Firms that currently have effective monitoring procedures should have nothing to fear, but the existence of a requirement to monitor product safety will in itself heighten the awareness of other businesses to such procedures.
If some countries have lax laws, the standards that prevail along the whole production process may well be lax, whereas if they know that tough standards have to be met, they will gear themselves to meeting those standards. That is the crux of the argument. We want every encouragement to be given to promoting the highest standards of safety throughout Europe. We can no longer afford to argue for the lowest common denominator and delude ourselves into thinking that our laws will insulate our consumers from dangerous foreign products. They will not, and that is why we want the highest possible standards to be set across the widest range of goods, with proper monitoring.
It is astonishing that the Department responsible for consumer protection could tell the House of Lords Select Committee on 21 February:
We are still of the view that the United Kingdom protection would not be enhanced by the General Safety Product Directive.
The directive strengthens our laws and rectifies certain defects. The major criticism of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is the development of risk defence that arises from part I of the Act. The Government insisted on the inclusion of that and it weakens consumer rights. The directive would remedy that. Some countries do not have strong powers for recalling unsafe goods: the directive should have such powers.
I know that the Minister will have studied the comments of consumer groups about the directive. I hope that he will ensure that their views are communicated to the Commission and that he will seek to ensure that in its

final form the directive does more to reflect the views of consumer organisations. If he does that, he will make a better law and gain considerable support.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has moved a negative amendment. It is indicative of the lack of interest by the Opposition in consumer matters that seven to eight times as many Conservative Members are here at this fairly late hour to debate product safety. Once again, there is no sign of the Liberal party or the SDP. No doubt by this time members of those parties are tucked up in bed with improving literature and cocoa.
I should like to discuss three matters—the scope of the draft directive that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs so ably moved, the general duty, and enforcement. I am sure that my hon. Friends will give a warm welcome, rather than the carping one that we have heard from the Opposition, to the fact that the directive will extend the style of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to foods and medicines and will spread the general approach to other EEC states.
If enacted, the directive will be a major boost to consumer confidence in the general internal market. The sooner it can be implemented, the better, and attempts to limit its scope to consumer goods will weaken the universal safety advantages that the directive seeks to achieve.
The directive establishes a general safety duty. Our essential concern is that it does not appear to place a specific duty on manufacturers and suppliers to supply safe goods. Under article 3, it is left to member states to take
all necessary measures in order to ensure that only safe products are placed on the market.
That leaves the directive open to implementation in different ways in various member states. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the directive can include a clear requirement for member states to impose the general safety duty on suppliers of goods.
It is unclear how the arrangements for the permanent monitoring of products will work. The products need to be monitored across the EEC states. With regard to the enforcement mechanism, are we sure that countries such as Greece and Portugal have the same concerns as national authorities in this country? The status of the indicative list of powers for national authorities is not clear. I hope that they will be minimalist rather than simply indicative. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has wide experience of EEC matters, will consider including hired goods in the directive.
The United Kingdom appears to be alone in wanting the general duty requirement to apply to all suppliers and for sanctions to apply at any point in this chain. Other states want that to be largely restricted to manufacturers and importers. I hope that the Government are supported in their wish and that retailers are included in the scope of that general duty.
On enforcement, there is no Community dimension to the banning of dangerous products. In my time in the House, I have been involved in legislation on foam-filled furniture. My hon. Friend the Minister acted speedily and it is good to know that all new foam-filled furniture now has to comply with the new legislation. There is some concern about second-hand foam-filled furniture, and I hope that the trading standards officers will deal with that as effectively as possible.
My hon. Friend was sympathetic to the all-party delegation that I led on the danger of glass-topped tables. It was sad that a little youngster on the outskirts of York died because of unsafe glass in a glass-topped table. My hon. Friend, without any lethargy, has pressed on and is looking to the British Standards Institution to produce a new specification—full marks to him and to the Department for that. Those two specific items were lacking in the Opposition's credibility on consumer matters.
It will be helpful to have an EEC-wide rapid notification system for the exchange of information on dangerous products. The sooner that is introduced, the better. I hope that we shall not have to wait for implementation of the directive.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the broad concept of the directive and what my hon. Friend the Minister said when he introduced it. He may remember that, on occasion, I have spoken briefly on the subject of product liability. However, I am not so much concerned with that tonight, because we are not really dealing with the fringes of technology, where we seek to give specific encouragement and protection to firms that are trying to push forward the frontiers of scientific application to production. Instead, we are considering the question of consumer goods.
I accept my hon. Friend's point about costs. That must be relevant. I have some sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who moved the amendment on behalf of the impressive list of absentees who claim to have so wide an interest in consumer safety. I agree with him that the basic issue of consumer safety is of great and significant importance. It would be a pity if the Minister gave the impression that the Government were seeking in any way to water down what would be worthwhile safeguards for British consumers.
But there is the danger that, with a multiplicity of levels of protection, far from improving the protection of the consumer, the situation could be so complex and potentially expensive legally that the consumer would lose his protection. That would apply in national consumer protection, in terms of EC directives covering particular ranges of products and, now, in the more generalised directive that we are discussing.
The question of cost does not apply only to manufacturers in reaching safety standards. I imagine that most manufacturers would welcome high safety standards, so long as they are applied equally to all their competitors. After all, high safety standards of the final product reflect the high quality of that product during its production.

Mr. Roger Gale: The Minister has a fine track record both in implementing European directives in United Kingdom legislation and ensuring that they are enforced. Does my hon. Friend have any qualms lest, if these provisions become too complex, other European countries which are perhaps not as good as we are in enforcing such directives will not enforce them?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend reinforces what I am saying, which is that the responsible manufacturer—and the responsible retailer who sells the product and the responsible Government who enforce the legislation—

benefits most from the universal application of firm regulation, properly enforced. That is why I agree that we cannot do everything in one blanket directive, because of the innate complications of the issue with which we are dealing.
There are some areas in which it is essential to have clear and straightforward safety objectives in the European Community—particularly after 1992, when the flow of goods will be easier and, we trust, more advantageous to consumers in that they will enjoy a wider range of goods—not only for goods which have their origins in the EC but for those which are imported and sold in the EC. They must be subject to the same degree of regulation, particularly as we have seen recently a weakening of the old-fashioned style of stamping, listing the country of origin. We do not have the protection that we used to have when the origin of goods was readily recognisable.
I suggest that there is a problem in the Minister's attempt to use the phrase "consumer products", which is not an exact term in European usage. It may be that we know what we mean by "consumer goods" in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but European countries have different definitions, and we will find it difficult to reach agreement on the matter with our European partners. Many items produced and purchased by individuals for their own use are utilised in further economic activity. If those goods prove to be unsafe and lead to consequential injury, loss or damage, that is just as serious a matter as if the products were seen as being for industrial or commercial use even though they are listed as being consumer products.
National legislation, including our own, can leave grey or uncertain spaces. For example, some products are sold which appear to have a therapeutic value but which make no particular medical claims, so that they do not fall under the restrictions which would affect drugs and medicines. I think particularly of those products which are sold as slimming aids and as some sort of aphrodisiac or sexual enhancer. At present, the United Kingdom law in that area is inadequate. That matter needs considering. With the wider range of products which will be available in future some kind of blanket directive covering those areas— [Interruption.]Was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeking to intervene on the matter of sexual enhancers?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman had tried them.

Mr. Griffiths: I have no need. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been tempted by the hon. Gentleman, which I know is unusual for him.
The important fact is that there are grey areas which need to be covered by a blanket directive. Therefore, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's recognition of the need to limit the scope of the directive, but we need some consumer protection for the person who buys products which do not fall directly under national legislation or the directive.
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said tonight. He put his case strongly, but I hope that he will keep in mind the fact that there are areas where we may be able to learn something from European concepts. It may be that it is in partnership that we shall bring about what we all want —the ultimate safety of the consumer.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and no doubt if I were of his political persuasion I could have said that there was no relationship between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the producer, but with my experience of satisfying a general public I know that there is a great and important relationship between the interests of the consumer and those of the producer or manufacturer.
Again, had I been of the same political persuasion as the hon. Gentleman I could have deceived myself into believing that people can be protected from themselves, but they cannot. What distresses me so much about the documents before us today is that so much of what is contained in them is an attempt to protect people against their natural judgment and instinct. That is a triumph of hope over experience, and in complete contrast with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister, whose remarks I applaud.
My hon. Friend the Minister was critical of the fact that so much of what is before us for consideration today is so prescriptive in detail. The European Commission makes the same mistake time and again, seeking to be prescriptive of everything that we do in the Community. That will eventually be its undoing. Whether the butter-fat content of milk is this, that or the other matters not a jot or tittle to me or to anyone else in the land, but the European Commission continues to follow its prescriptive line.
The Community and the House should concern themselves with what I would describe as the macro-issues. In the past 12 months, we have seen a remarkable phenomenon—eastern Europe has thrown off the shackles of socialism and wants to join a free market. That presents the Community with an enormous challenge, and how it meets that challenge will be of monumental importance throughout the world for the lifetime of many hon. Members. Economic and monetary union is another macro-issue—and now, as a result of pressure put on us by the leaders of other Community nations, we are being asked to consider political union. I am prepared to discuss such issues into the small hours, but I am not prepared to discuss mundane and prescriptive details—and nor, I am sure, is my hon. Friend the Minister.
In an earlier intervention, I observed that much of what comes out of Brussels nowadays thoroughly undermines the principle of subsidiarity, within which the Government have committed themselves to the policy of economic and monetary union. At every turn, the Commission shows that it does not understand the meaning of that principle, let alone subscribe to it. That is why I shall support the Government today.

Mr. Forth: This has been a brief but invigorating debate. I thank my hon. Friends for their supportive comments and I will ponder on how the details can best be incorporated into our approach to the directive.
In reply to my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), may I say that I am still concered about the extent to which existing directives are uniformly and effectively enforced throughout the Community. I hope that the House will agree that there is little point in our labouring long and hard to devise

more and more directives, even if the aim is to underpin the single market, if we are not convinced that existing directives are being properly implemented.
I believe that we can look anyone in the eye with confidence and pride, knowing that in this vital area of consumer protection we have probably the best system in the world. Our regulations are detailed, they are developed after consultation, and they are implemented and enforced by independent, expert and professional trading standards officers who report to local authorities rather than to central Government.
Our blend of expertise and independence underpins the regulations, which in turn enforce the directives. I suspect that all my hon. Friends—and, for all I know, Opposition Members—share the Government's fear that the directives are not implemented uniformly throughout the Community. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind in debates of this kind. Otherwise, we shall be kidding not only ourselves but—much worse—the consumers of the European Community if we suggest that they will obtain better protection through measures such as this. It is vital to take that into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for York and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the safety of glass. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He knows that we are concerned about the matter and are considering it carefully. I thought that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South was less than fair, if not uncharitable, in suggesting that the Department of Trade and Industry was not dealing with the matter. We are indeed dealing with it, but we are reliant on the independent British Standards Institution to come forward with effective standards which we will endorse as quickly as we can so as to put in place the glass and glazing safety regulations that the hon. Gentleman wants. In his comments, including his allegations that unsafe heaters could come in from other member states, he did not seem to understand fully the way in which the existing provisions work. If a product, from wherever it comes, can be shown to be unsafe, it can be taken off the market under our existing national regulations. I am sure that he understands that. No doubt his comment was made inadvertently and he may like to withdraw it on another occasion.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The point that I made came direct from the Consumers Association. The Minister will have studied carefully the association's evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation. It maintains that this year heaters, which were illegal under the safety standards for sale in Germany, were on sale in this country. I was drawing attention to that. I believe that a tougher directive would address the problem properly.

Mr. Forth: I yield to none in my admiration for the work done by the Consumers Association, but I do not necessarily take all its documents as texts for my speeches. The hon. Gentleman should look critically at what the Consumers Association says and not accept everything produced by it as suitable material to be used from the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps he and I could deal with the matter in correspondence as a separate issue if it still troubles him after the debate.
The hon. Gentleman profoundly misunderstood the discussions which have already taken place. I was at pains to emphasise, and I re-emphasise, that many other


member states of the Community share the reservations that I have outlined to the House. In the preliminary discussion in the Council of Ministers in November, the majority of member states shared our reservations—indeed, some were more vehement than the United Kingdom—about the scope of the directive, its ambitiousness, and the extent to which it is unlikely to be effective for various reasons. It is unfair for anyone to suggest that the United Kingdom is alone. We have many friends in favour of our argument to make the measure effective and workable. We are all moving forward in that direction.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) for his comments. He was right to emphasise the point about multiplicity not necessarily giving viability, if I may put it in that multi-syllabic way. The definition of consumer goods may be a problem. We are happy that it is workable in the English language and in our own tradition, but I accept that it may be more difficult to get it into a workable state across the entire spectrum of European languages and cultures. That will be dealt with in working up the details of the directive.
My hon. Friend made some points intriguingly and hauntingly, if not hintingly, on pseudo-pharmaceuticals. He mentioned slimming aids and aphrodisiacs. Tempted though I am to get involved in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about aphrodisiacs just after 11 o'clock on a Thursday evening, I will resist the temptation. I suspect that these are probably matters for my hon. Friends in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I will consider the points more carefully and perhaps write to my hon. Friend to tell him what is being done about these matters as he speaks for many people in voicing concern about them.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for his vigorous approach to the directive and his support for the tone of my remarks and the content of the motion.
We have had a useful debate which has been helpful to me. I hope that the House, having heard what I have to say and having listened to the contributions of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, will feel able to support the motion.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7480/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd April 1990 relating to general product safety; and supports the Government's view that any directive should be restricted to consumer products, that products covered by specified directives that concern safety should be excluded from the general directive, and that any additional burden on businesses should be kept to a minimum.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Orders of the Day — SEA FISHERIES

That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 685), dated 20th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick..]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — Orphans (Romania)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Humfrey Malins: It may be thought surprising that we in this country did not know earlier of the appalling tragedy of the Romanian orphans. In any event, since Ceausescu's death in December 1989, the tragic story of those child victims of a terrible regime has gradually unfolded, leaving people in this country and elsewhere in Europe deeply shocked and deeply moved.
The Ceausescu regime was cruel to women and children. It banned contraception and outlawed abortion, and women were expected to bear at least five children by law. With no means to prevent them, pregnancies came in rapid succession. Women also had to work, because a single wage was not enough to keep a family.
In a country that had hitherto treated infectious diseases as a state secret, the AIDS epidemic among young children, and the scale of mental and physical handicap that afflicted them, is truly heartbreaking. The scale of AIDS among children in Romania is unprecedented, and though it was thought that it was largely confined to children, a report in The Times today suggests that many adults are affected as well. It is likely that the epidemic was caused by infected blood transfusions given to newborn babies, who lack any immunity, or by the use of infected syringes. Romania's mortality rate was high, and underweight, frail babies resulting from starvation diets and overworked mothers were the norm.
Thousands of undernourished, unwanted and aban-doned children found their way into Romania's overflowing orphanages. They were treated with unscreened blood plasma taken from hundreds of samples. Thus were the children infected with the AIDS virus, resulting in probably the worst child AIDS epidemic in the world.
How many such children are there? A figure of 550 HIV positive infants was given in February, but it is thought by many to be only the tip of the iceberg. How many orphans are there now? Perhaps 200,000 of them—though as no one knows for sure, it is difficult to give an accurate figure. The orphanages vary in size, taking from 50 to 800 children. One is thought to have 1,400 children in it.
When people in Britain began to understand the scale of the tragedy, they wanted to help by making gifts of money, toys, food, and medical supplies—and by seeking to adopt young infants who lacked the security of parents. It is about those efforts to help, and the vital need to co-ordinate them, that I want to say a few words tonight.
The Croydon Advertiser, an outstanding provincial newspaper, has this year highlighted the tragedy of the Romanian orphans. It appealed to its many readers to help, in a series of deeply moving articles. That call has been answered. It was much encouraged by Mr. Speaker, who, as Member of Parliament for Croydon, North-East, has taken a deep interest in the problem and has visited Romania. The Croydon Advertiser appeal has raised more than £14,000.
Croydon's help has been practical. A most able and experienced Croydon Advertiser reporter, Hilary Brook, joined a group of Croydon volunteers who drove a truckload of food, clothes and medical supplies from

Croydon to Romania in early February. Their destination was an orphanage 17 miles outside Cluj-Napoca, on the Dej road.
As Hilary Brook reported, the volunteers found an orphanage which was home—if one could call it such—to some 300 boys. Some were simply abandoned, some were genuine orphans, some were mentally or physically handicapped and most were crippled. Each child—they were aged between six and 18—had a metal cup containing water, a little bread, a little onion and a few cubes of fat, but no knives, forks or plates. It was freezing outside and not much better inside and they had nothing hot to eat or drink. Some children had twisted limbs so that they could hardly walk, others were in dormitories and were so handicapped that they could not move. Hilary Brook reported that they were unloved, unwanted and uncared for, but that their spirit was still unbroken. The incidence of physical handicap was extraordinarily high.
Later the Croydon Advertiser reported that a Croydon head teacher, Stuart Newton, from Selsdon High school, together with Ralph Osborne, was to take blankets, warm clothes and toys donated by readers, school pupils and others from the Croydon and Bromley areas to the orphanage. More volunteers will be travelling in a few weeks time.
A major concern is that, although a huge United Kingdom relief operation is under way, largely made up of individuals or small groups, many of those involved have little experience of such problems and simply follow their instincts. They worry that there is a lack of co-ordination here or in Romania. It seems that many voluntary bodies are acting independently with no central body to co-ordinate their efforts.
There is no doubt that the British Government are seeking to do what they can. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has told the House of the work done by the International Red Cross and of the large United Kingdom contribution to that. He also told the House about the Government's donation of a consignment of 1·8 tonnes of medical supplies on 24 December and several items of medical equipment since then, including 1 million disposable syringes worth £40,000. Five victims of the December fighting are in the United Kingdom for major surgery, at a cost yet to be determined. A further £53,000 has been made available to finance a project by Marie Stopes International to improve birth control services in Romania. He told us that we are contributing about £5·8 million to food aid and medical supplies packages sent, or so far agreed, by the EC. Further funds, as yet to be determined, will be made available, he told us, over the next few months for medical supplies.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lady Hooper, is taking a keen interest in the problems. She recommended that priority be given to the work of the task forces to develop maternity and child health services, to build up missing skills through the provision of nursing and other health personnel and in developing a satisfactory management system for primary health care. She would also like funding to be provided for essential drugs and medical devices of which there is a considerable' shortage in Romania.
However, the question of co-ordination of effort remains. The British Red Cross confirms that no body exists to co-ordinate the contribution of voluntary organisations. It describes children as one of its top


priorities in Romania, now that the emergency medical aid has been provided, and is concentrating on providing long-term help to improve standards in orphanages whilst working to have those institutions dismantled altogether. It is providing aid in the form of toys, cots, blankets and so on, and attempting to see that heating is provided in the winter. The orphanages do not have any form of heating. The British Red Cross is acting together with the International Red Cross, and each country has been allocated a particular area of the country within which to work. The British Red Cross is the largest organisation involved in providing aid.
Other organisations working to provide aid to Romanian children include the Romanian Orphanage Trust, the World Vision of Free Romanians, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Flanders Scottish Alliance of Edinburgh. Kevin Ernshaw, the project director of Flanders, has visited the orphanages in Romania extensively, pointing out the need not for more children's homes, but to empty those that already exist, and the need for specialist nurses and nursing homes and specialist training. He says that we should help in the specialist training of Romanians so that they can provide appropriate care and treatment.
The Terrence Higgins Trust has worked magnificently and has been acting as an informal contact point for the various organisatons providing aid to Romania.
One issue concerning those poor children that has been highlighted in the press is adoption. I understand that the British agencies for adoption and fostering know of no voluntary or official body to approach with regard to possible adoption, as there are no approved adoption agencies in the United Kingdom dealing with foreign adoption. All such adoptions are arranged by private agencies. They are referring inquiries to the Romanian embassy which, apparently, has no information but is advising inquirers to contact the Flanders Scottish Alliance.
My message to my hon. Friend is that there are so many people—not just in Croydon but throughout the country and in many other places—who are willing and wanting to help in so many ways that surely there is a need for those people to have some co-ordination here and in Romania.
The Croydon Advertiser reporter, Hilary Brook, recently went to a national conference organised by a Southampton group called Starvation Aid for Romania, which is trying to get together a database for all United Kingdom groups involved in relief work. Surely that is a sensible move and the right approach. There is an argument for the Government to provide funds for a contact point which can collect facts, information and views centrally, and advise those many people who are willing to help but struggling for guidance, so that effort is neither duplicated nor wasted.
I raise the subject tonight on the Adjournment because it is of great importance locally in Croydon and nationally. I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned with the issue and I hope that he will be able to say something on the important question of co-ordination of British efforts to provide some desperately needed help for those poor children.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) has generously allowed me a couple of minutes to take part in this short debate. Everyone in the House tonight has listened with gratitude and sadness to his moving account of a terrifying situation.
My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to the work of the Romanian Orphanage Trust. My wife is one of the trustees and on her behalf I should like to express the thanks of the trust to all those Members on both sides of the House who have contributed personally to the work of the trust and who have involved their constituents in fund-raising for that work. A great deal of money has been raised, and a great deal more will be needed to send the medical teams, paediatricians and nurses to whom my hon. Friend referred to help the orphans in Romania. Foremost among the Members of Parliament who have contributed to that work has been Mr. Speaker.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of that outstanding provincial paper, the Croydon Advertiser. I hope that he will not mind if I couple the work of that newspaper with the work of the Daily Mail, and with the name of the estimable Hilary Brook the name of Bob Graham who has turned an assignment into a crusade. We often criticise the press for various aspects of its work, but it is only right that in this case we should praise those newspapers which have dedicated their efforts to keeping the plight of those desperate children in the forefront of our thoughts.
It is a sad fact that the plight of the orphans may depend on the outcome of elections in Romania in which the opposition parties are denied all access to free media by Ceausescu's successors. Unless the elections in Romania are free and fair, and unless a free Government are returned, one fears that the orphans there will face a new dark age. It is therefore vital that newspapers such as the Croydon Advertiser and the Daily Mail continue their work to keep the matter in the forefront of people's minds and to try to ensure that democracy prevails and that those children receive the help that they need. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West, I wish them well.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) on bringing the plight of the Romanian orphans to the attention of the House and on doing so movingly and eloquently. As my hon. Friend has described, over the months since the revolution in Romania, efforts by the western media, especially British television news and, of course, such excellent newspapers as the Croydon Advertiser, have unearthed one of the most horrifying human legacies of the years of the Ceausescu dictatorship.
In orphanages throughout Romania, babies and young children, some of them mentally handicapped, have been languishing in terrible conditions, as my hon. Friend has described. The shocking scenes, for example, of the Brincovenesti Castle institution, which were shown on BBC television earlier this year, were scarcely to be believed. In many other locations around the country, as


my hon. Friend has so graphically described, children and babies have been found living with barely the minimum of health care, food and attention.
Some of the young children in those institutions are doubtless there because their parents are dead or physically incapable of looking after them, but many are there for other reasons. For many years, Romanian women were denied access to contraception because of Ceausescu's desire to increase the size of the Romanian population. They were forced into either back-street abortion, with all the horrendous risks to health that that entails, or into abandoning the babies that they could not afford to look after. Many families could scarcely feed themselves, let alone a new arrival, and we should pause before criticising too fiercely parents who abandoned their unwanted children in such hopeless circumstances.
Ceausescu's policies exerted a baleful influence on every aspect of Romanian life. Such news as managed to leak out from the country pointed to arguably the worst human rights record in eastern Europe—and that was well beforethe revolution of 1989. Political life was ruthlessly suppressed and would-be dissidents were harassed and jailed. Freedom of expression and religion was severely circumscribed by decree. The press and television were totally controlled by the state apparatus. Ordinary Romanians were forced to conform to the will of the dictator and his wife by the Securitate secret police, who ruled by fear.
In the economy, 25 years of Ceausescu's policies had brought the system to a virtual standstill. His obsession with generating hard currency even led him to order that food supplies, badly needed in Romania—by the children more than anyone else—should instead be exported. Weand other western countries did what we could to support ordinary Romanians through the provisions of the Helsinki process, but the suffering was widespread. The regime's indifference to human rights was perhaps epitomised by the fact that it even incarcerated the United Nations human rights rapporteur, Dumitru Mazilu.
The discoveries that I have mentioned are heartrending, but, as my hon. Friend has said, the response to them in Britain has been magnificent. Around the country, British people have given freely of their time and money to bring aid to the Romanian orphans. The British Red Cross's "Help Romania" appeal elicited a huge response in the early days of the revolution. Bristol Mencap and the Romanian Orphanage Trust have brought desperately needed aid to orphanages, and the Daily Mail, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, has just launched a £1 million appeal for the same purpose. The Flanders Scottish Alliance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West referred, the Romania Aid Fund and many other groups have organised convoys to take food and medical supplies into Romania. My hon. Friend has described this and, more particularly, the splendid efforts of the people of Croydon in response to the appeal by the Croydon Advertiser, supported by my hon. Friend and by Mr. Speaker himself. The generosity of the British people has been wonderful.
My hon. Friend has outlined some of the ways in which the Government have also been glad to contribute to the solution of this great problem. Our aid to Romania since the revolution, direct or via the EC, totals £6·6 million. We have funded a family planning programme which will contribute towards removing one of the causes of the problem of unwanted children. As my hon. Friend said,

one of the most distressing aspects of the problem of the orphans is the number of children who are HIV-positive —up to 50 per cent. in some orphanages and schools. 'The Romanian practice of giving blood transfusions to undernourished babies has led to widespread infection. We are doing what we can to help. We have given I million disposable syringes and needles. We are also paying for the transport to Romania of generous donations of disposable gloves from the Far Eastern Group of Chesterfield and of contraceptives and syringes from London International Group. We have given equipment for the testing of blood for the HIV virus.
Our help has not, however, been confined to tackling the AIDS problem. We have made contributions to two of the British charities that I have mentioned, to help send doctors and nurses to Romania and bring for training in this country Romanians responsible for looking after mentally handicapped children at the Brincovenesti Castle institution. We have also donated funds to transport, and reassembled in a children's hospital in Bucharest, some £250,000-worth of used X-ray equipment, kindly donated by Walsall Manor hospital. The arrangement was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), to whose efforts in this field I also pay tribute. Finally, I should add that we brought to this country for surgery at our expense five young victims of the fighting at the time of the revolution.
My hon. Friend raised the crucial question of how aid to Romania should be co-ordinated. Proper coordination, accurate targeting and effective delivery of aid are top priorities for the Government in our own aid programmes worldwide. I know from my dealings in other areas with the United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations how important it is to channel aid through bodies that know what is needed most, and by whom, and how to get it there. It is for that reason, and because the problem is so large, that we believe that the main humanitarian effort to help Romania must come through the international community and the international bodies, whose resources and expertise are essential.
The EC Commission has already allocated £35·5 million for general medical and food aid since the revolution. The 12 Governments of the Community last week expressed their concern to the authorities:in Romania about conditions in Romanian orphanages and homes for mentally handicapped children. The Romanians said that they are determined to improve conditions, and have already started to do so with the help of aid provided by friendly Governments and organisations. The European Commission now proposes to send a medical specialist to Romania to examine conditions in orphanages there. In the light of his findings, they have offered to organise joint action with non-governmental bodies in member states. That will be a valuable role in co-ordinating the international effort, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Once their plans are clear, we shall be happy to advise all the voluntary organisations with which we are in contact.
Several other international bodies are very experienced and efficient in co-ordinating and supplying aid. My hon. Friend has already mentioned the Red Cross. The Romanian authorities are co-operating with the United Nations Children's Fund to help orphans and mentally handicapped children. Finally, the World Health Organisation has organised a large-scale programme of assistance to the Romanian health service. My right hon.
Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced on 5 April that the Government would donate £500,000 to the WHO programme. We shall make sure that the organisations are fully aware of the scale of the generous response of the British public—and, indeed, the public in other countries—and play their part in ensuring that the total aid effort is satisfactorily co-ordinated.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the group in Southampton called Starvation Aid to Romania, which is organising a database for all United Kingdom groups involved. This should clearly be of great help, and we shall be delighted to pass to the group whatever useful information we can.
I have outlined some moves that are in progress, which I hope will go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's concern that all the help provided—and particularly that provided by the people of Croydon—will always be directed where it is most needed. These measures, and the other help in train, will go some way to overcoming the problems in Romania. However, my hon. Friends will agree that, in the long term, there can be no substitute for Romania itself coming to grips with the problems. That can be done best in a free society which can call on the resources of a flourishing economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North mentioned his concern about free elections. We regard free elections as a rightful contribution to the creation of a free society and, therefore, of a flourishing economy.
As a step towards assisting Romania to develop the abilities in this respect, we have taken measures to help the new and recently reformed Romanian political parties to organise for the elections that are to be held shortly. We have invited a group of their representatives to visit the United Kingdom for a political seminar organised by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We later donated 118 tonnes of paper, which, I regret to say, is in short supply in Romania, to the main parties for use in the elections. My hon. Friends will be well aware of the amount of paper that is used in elections. The British Government are ready

and willing to help Romania more extensively, once there is a clear commitment to democracy and economic freedom.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North raised the subject of adoption. I am not competent to speak in detail about that which is strictly the preserve of my colleagues in the Department of Health and the Home Office. I am sure that the House would agree that, all other things being equal, it is better for children to be looked after in their own country. This is, indeed, a principle of the United Nations declaration on adoption and fostering. But I can certainly sympathise with the sincere reaction of the many British people who wish to give one of the Romanian orphans a home and family here. I wish to make it very clear that the Government have no desire to put obstacles in their way.
We have to apply the same rules and procedures as we would for an adoption in the United Kingdom. These are safeguards to protect the children. I know that they can seem slow and cumbersome, but my colleagues in the Department of Health and the Home Office are reviewing them to see if they can be streamlined and improved. We have done our best to clarify requirements on the Romanian side as well. I can assure the House that applications are, and will be, dealt with as quickly as is consistent with the welfare of the child, which must be the concern of us all.
I have run through, I hope without repeating too much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West said, the causes of the tragic plight of Romanian orphans, to which he drew the attention of the House. They lie in the inhuman policies of the unlamented Ceausescu regime. I have paid tribute to the sterling work of British individuals and groups in sending aid, and outlined the Government's contribution. I have referred to some of the ways in which the aid effort is being co-ordinated and will be further co-ordinated in future. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject, and hope that what I have said has gone some way to reassuring the House that the Government are committed to doing what they can to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.